Talk:Oldest people/Archive 11

A New Start For This Page

There has been talk about making major changes on this page. I think some of the changes should be better organization (or a new format alltogether) and removing some of the tables. Any ideas on changes that you would like to be made to this page? regards --Npnunda (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that it should follow a transformation similar to List of living supercentenarians: clear standards for inclusion (who counts as "verified" etc.), better referencing (direct citations for each entry, as opposed to a handful of notes and some general links), NPOV check (no one arbitrarily assumed "verified" before they actually are, as was a big sticking point with the original LoLS), stylistic changes (I don't have many suggestions for this, as I lack a sense of good style, but removing the highlighting in redundant cases and the states would be a good start) and citation/removal of the bottom two uncited text sections. And while I kind of like the graph, it does make an already cluttered page even more messy, but I could go either way with that one. Also, in response to above, I believe that chopping down the "Oldest people ever" to just the top 10 is the best solution because a) This page is "information overload" enough as it is, and all that data is replicated elsewhere and b) Most other "summary" lists are restricted to the top ten (example: Lists of state leaders). Cheers, CP 01:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Paul says here. I think what this page lacks is a main focus. What I mean by that is it has alot of tables and information that is already on other pages while not really having an identity of It's own. I think the first paragraph at the begining is a good place to start because it talks about "Oldest People" in general.

Removing the highlights has been brought up before. I don't remember any objections to it so why not just remove them. My test edit to remove them messed up the page or I would have done this myself. I've already said that I would like the list of "Oldest people ever" to be somewhere between 15-25. Not really a big difference. We have time to figure that out though and other things. Regards --Npnunda (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have created a template with my vision of what this page should look like here. I ask that, with the exceptions of uncontroversial changes (such as spelling errors) or the addition of proper citations, that no editing be done to my page. I have listed the changed that I have made on the talk page, and will be happy to discuss other substantial ones there. If you wish to create an alternate version, please do so in your own user space. The only thing that I feel that my version is missing is proper citations for the individual individuals, which I will set up in due course. Time to start building consensus and bringing this page up to code. Cheers, CP 21:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is perhaps an aside for this topic, but I think we need to add clear and concise information for disputed cases. We can't make a list of people, whether it's oldest in the world at each point in time, or the oldest people ever without having to mention a disputed case, like Izumi. What we can do on the other hand is give readers unbiased information so they can come to their own conclusion.

I think the Nation of death section should be shortened to eg. top 15, or 112+, and the emigrant table removed (these can be viewed on the longevity records page). SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

For the disputed cases, if there was a reliable source that mentioned the dispute, I kept it with a note, otherwise I removed it. I have no objection to the restoration of the "dispute" on those cases that I removed it from, so long as it is covered in a reliable source. I also have no objections to trimming down the "Nation of death" and emigrant table sections either... I could go either way with those tables. Cheers, CP 20:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reaction from Robert Douglas Young to this:

1. We don't even see the "emigrant records" on the national longevity records page.

2. "Oldest People" is supposed to be a concise summary...the national longevity records page has too much gobbledygook on it.

3. We can easily see with the way it is that the "oldest person" from Greece, for example, died in the U.S. Leave it the way it is.

Also, why are so many people messing with the "old" flags? Come on, do we see the old American flags being used? When Edna Parker was born, there weren't 50 stars (or even 48) on the flag. But she's alive today, right?

In short, the "emigrant records" and "national longevity records" already seem to be concise and trim. No need to delete. Also of note, not all the information is on the "main" article "national longevity recordholders"). In addition, the "main article" is bogged down with nonsense such as the oldest person in Greenland, Kosovo, etc.

It makes sense to have a quick summary on the "oldest people" page.

Extremely sexy (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I have tried to add those that I know of onto the page. For example, George Frederick Ives, born UK was the oldest man to die in Canada, although the oldest native Canadian to die there was Joseph Saint-Armour. This somewhat comes back to what I was saying earlier about disputed cases: Things can be interpreted differently. Who was the oldest American? Was it Mortensen, or Mathew Beard? I think the best way to layout something like this is to give people the information to draw their own conclusions. Some might say the place of death is the most relevant, some might say the place of birth, some might say where they spent the majority of their life. Emigrant records are on the national longevity page(s) and if there are any missing, I feel they should be added for the above reason.

2. I agree, but I also think the "Oldest people" page has too much gobbledegook on it, mainly because there are so many angles to look at the subject: Oldest people since 1955, Oldest people living, Oldest people ever. However, I don't think a list of the oldest people from each country is as important as those. I do still see it as important, I just feel that the table itself should be shrunk. There are 25 people listed, plus another 9 in the emigrant table. I wouldn't call that short. There are already 2 large tables at the top, that I feel are necessary to keep - for now (although I think in the future they may need their own article with a shortened table on the main page). The rest of the tables list the top 10 only (bar the 115+ table, which will be changed top 10 soon). This is why I think this section needs to be shortened: The other tables before it are arguably more important. Secondly, this section is needlessly larger than the other sections.

The emigrant records table, as you will have noticed, is detached from the list of the oldest person from each country. The emigrant table could be removed, and in its place put footnotes about eg. Charlotte Benkner, as well as other cases. If you have an emigrant table, then there must also be an immigrant table. For example, Florence Finch who was the oldest person to die in New Zealand was not the oldest native, which needs to be mentioned equally to emigrant records. I have had a go at merging the tables together and I have added it to my user page.

3. As for the flag issue, we have people listed with their place of birth and place of death, if they emigrated. Back in the 1890s, Hungary wasn't a country. Or at least, not on its own. It was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I assume it must have been somewhat similar to England, Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland back then. As for other cases, Algeria belonged to France back then. As the person died in France, some people may not choose to accept that person as an emigrated case as they stayed under the same rule. Cape Verde was part of Portugal back then too. We need to be historically accurate as to which flags we use. It's not as big an issue with the US flag, which has stayed more or less the same (especially when viewed at 22 pixels wide). However some countries have changed - politically, geographically and culturally, with many changing the flag drastically and even the name of the country. I think it is important to reflect this in the article. As for your example with Edna Parker, she is still living in the USA and should therefore still be represented by the current US flag. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are my two cent's worth.

1. Keep the list if record-holders from 1955. 2. Omit the chart of record-holders as this doesn't appreciably add anything to what exists above. 3. Omit the "oldest men" list. Sorry, but I fail to see the point, especially given that for a great amount of time, when Izumi was #1, there is no indication as to who the eldest woman was. There's a ten-year gap there, folks, where we don't know who the oldest woman was, yet we are supposed to care about the pre-Izumi males from 1961 who, for most of the time, weren't even supercentenarians?

4. To be consistent, we should have the following: A list of a larger all-encompassing "oldest ever" people, followed by a top ten men "ever," then a larger, all-encompassing "oldest living people" followed by a top ten men living. In this way, the rather odd emphasis on this page to males who live shorter lives in general can be rectified. An emphasis, I might add, which has the effect of having comprehensive lists of men, while omitting the same for women who are the ones who live longer (for example, we know who all the male record-holders of "oldest living men" are, but not women, we know ten-deep who the oldest living men are, but not of women when a man cracks the top ten).

5. Supercentenarians pre-1955. Sorry, but why is this here? 6. I kinda like the national records, actually. One suggestion which I am surprised no one has thrown out here before: Given that throughout history political maps have shown a tendency to change rather dramatically, especially over the course of the 110+ years normally found on this page, instead of fussing about who deserves a "national" record, we should note the appropriate flag at birth, and the flag at death. In the end, since different people and different nations define "nationality" this debate is irresolvable. But we should at least do that. Canada Jack (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of furthering discussion, here are some comments to the above from Mr. Young:

Point 3: I'd rather add an "oldest women" list than delete the "oldest man" list. Some issues:

A. The Izumi case is disputed (so it many not be true). We see that since Izumi, we have had males #1 for all of six weeks out of twenty years.

B. It's like sports: we remember that Gertrude Ederle swam the English channel, breaking the men's record...but do we remember the men's record when it was less than the woman's? There is an assumption that those with the advantage should have done better. 90% of supercentenarians are women, so in the same way we report separate results for sports by gender, so we need longevity results by gender as well.

If you wish to make an "oldest women" list during the Izumi period, it's not that difficult: try the GRG table by chronology (AA) and it should be fairly easy to figure out who comes next.

Point 5: Since the Guinness "oldest person" title started in 1955, there are pre-Guinness candidates for oldest person cited in the scientific literature who deserve a mention. Perhaps this section should be moved to above the "oldest person since 1955" table, with a prefatory explanation.

Point 6: Finally, let's not forget the "national" records table format came from Guinness itself, so the Wikipedia article should at least reflect that. I agree that rather than "nationality" (which is debatable), the determining factor should be "place of birth" and "place of death." There's only one of each.

Also of note, an "immigrant records" table could/should be added to balance the "emigrant records" table. As someone pointed out, Florence Finch of New Zealand was not born in New Zealand: she was born in England and didn't move to New Zealand until 1969 or 1976 (reports vary). One reason I emphasize "place of birth" more is that someone could move simply to set a record, but no one considers, when born, that they may one day be the oldest person from that nation.

Also, there should be at least some emphasis that the point of "national" records is not national pride, but to show the coverage of recordkeeping and/or longevity. For example, we see that records from Africa are sparse and where they do exist, they are European colonists.

Cheers Canada Jack (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points:

1.Robert says that Greenland and Kosovo records are nonsense. Well I admit that the territorial records only exist because someone wanted to add Johannes Tauser of the Faroes. Charlotte Petersen is a real youngster for these pages but at least it is properly cited. As for Kosovo, it is a proper country now and if Feride Bucolli is the age claimed then it's noteworthy. Granted, the source has a lot of facts wrong, like saying Jeanne Calment had children who are still alive! And the methodology is probably not up to GRG standards. But give them a break. They've only just gained independence and they're trying.

2.Jack, you said that the pre-Izumi Oldest Men were mostly mere centenarians, but actually they all reached 110. I would rather remove the national records since they have their own page, and as Robert said the Izumi-era women can easily be added. I'm very much against removing the pre-1955 cases. Before Calment, Filkins WAS the standard. If someone gets to 130 you wouldn't erase Calment from history. Peters may also be a landmark and if not him then Boomgaard, Neve and Thiers are. Plunkett is also a classic case. The others not so much, but I'd rather focus on historical progression than geographical variation. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

If I might make a bureaucratic suggestion, since no one seems to be creating their own version of the page in their userspace and things are getting lost in the conversation, may I suggest that if someone disagrees with one of the changes that I have made, that they sign their name and comment under the change here, where I have listed the changes? That way we can keep track of which changes are disputed and which ones everyone seems to agree with. Also, everyone is also more than welcome to start a section/discussion such as "Suggestions by Captain Celery" or whoever. That way, we can be sure we won't be just spinning our wheels, and that nothing will get lost in the discussion and that we can actually achieve some sort of consensus on what to do. Cheers, CP 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"SiameseTurtle" has done this too though. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If he has, I can't see it and it wasn't done at the time I made that comment, three days ago. Cheers, CP 19:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he literally said he had though, and this before you commented yourself:

"The emigrant records table, as you will have noticed, is detached from the list of the oldest person from each country. The emigrant table could be removed, and in its place put footnotes about eg. Charlotte Benkner, as well as other cases. If you have an emigrant table, then there must also be an immigrant table. For example, Florence Finch who was the oldest person to die in New Zealand was not the oldest native, which needs to be mentioned equally to emigrant records. I have had a go at merging the tables together and I have added it to my user page. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)" Extremely sexy (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact he did this more than 4 1/2 days ago already: just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SiameseTurtle. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then I hadn't seen that, my apologies, as it is some good and useful work. But it's not the entire page either, so it's not an entire "own" version of the page, is it? Cheers, CP 15:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow - does CP have a history of getting or trying to get people banned who he doesn't agree with? This is a first for me here. AS for your comments, Celery, putting aside CP's rather irrelevant earlier aside which he has wisely chose to expunge from here as it reveals his naked attempts to take away those here who take issue with him, I would say that for the pre-1955 period, we keep those whose cases who were the record-setters then. So, keep the old historical progression, keeping in mind here that records were scarce and scattered at least relatively speaking. To list, as it does, a seemingly comprehensive list all of those known centenarians who proceeded Guinness' entry into this, is not what we should do here, as the only "importance" here should is who in the past is now seen as being the holders of the best documented cases of all-time record holders. We don't, after all, make any attempt to comprehensively list all subsequent 110+-year-olds, even when in the years shortly after 1955 there were not great numbers of them.

Have to say I agree with the CHARACTERIZATION of the views of the BANNED MEMBER WHO SHALL REMAIN UNMENTIONED, Celery. The CHARACTERIZATION, I should add, on territories. Again, from a legal standpoint, I want to emphasize I AM REACTING TO A CHARACTERIZATION OF A VIEW from Celery, NOT TO THE ACTUAL VIEWS OF A BANNED MEMBER. This CHARACTERIZATION, which suggests that Greenland and Kosovo records are "nonsense," inasmuch as Celery CHARACTERIZES the view, finds a sympathetic audience with me. The point is not that Kosovo is no longer a territory, it is whether it has reached international standards so that its BMD institutions and records can be said to be reliable and accurate. Also, there may be issues in terms of successor states at play here, so I feel it is a legitimate question as to whether we can embrace their records and claims. We'd like to "give a break" to the Iraqi Olympic athletes too, but they still gotta cross the line first to get the gold. And that "gold" are certain well-established standards from which it is generally accepted before claims for 110+-year-olds are accepted. I don't want to suppose that any BANNED MEMBER would agree with that assessment as I have not communicated with any BANNED MEMBER, but my opinion I am sure will be embraced by many others, and if a BANNED MEMBER should happen to agree with me, then that is a coincidence, pure and simple. Canada Jack (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Retaining the record-setters would be better, although we would still lose Plunkett, which is a shame. As for Kosovo, look at the McWhirters. Some of the stuff they put into early Guinness was ludicrous, like the 16 inch man. But they're still legends 'in this business'. Because of the steps they took then, we now have the rigour of GRG (although Guinness have regressed to the point where they think people are a foot taller than they really are). It would be patronising to say that Kosovo are working from that point because it's a small world now. But we needn't ridicule them for not being up to our standards yet. It's another case where you need rules to disallow them, rather than just saying that "it's Kosovo so it must be nonsense". 78.145.35.67 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

I would like to move this along... it's been a week since I first suggested this and four days since the last relevant piece of discussion. The only bone of contention that I can figure is that we seem to disagree on how many of the national records we want to keep aboard. My suggestion would be to implement my version of the page on the 20th and keep the full table of national and emigrant records, at which point we can continue to discuss their merits. We need to do something quickly, as this version of the page is still being updated and runs the danger of becoming too out of date with my suggested version. The only big difference that I can tell is that the flags were changed to their proper era. It is, however, difficult to tell what is going on with all of this decentralized chatter, so maybe you all hate my version and I can't tell. In any case, I've set the 20th as the goal for changing this page. Cheers, CP 15:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I support moving along with Paul's version of the page on the 20th. --Npnunda (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. I did propose a small change to Paul's page on the talk page. I don't think it will be a big issue. --Npnunda (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Kudos for CP for his work in mapping a new page. However, from the discussion above, it is clear that CP's approach is not the emerging consensus. For example, what he has suggesting on how to deal with pre-1955 centenarians is not what we see above. Accordingly, later today or tomorrow I will lay out a new structure here given the above discussion and perhaps we can move from there. Canada Jack (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to help too, but there's a lot of confusing text up there. Can you summarize what the issues are with pre-1955, then maybe we can modify my version and save you some work? Cheers, CP 17:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with what you have done, CP, in my view, is that it really doesn't aggressively address some of the issues identified here, and doesn't make enough of a change to be a new start. One main aspect here is that we lack a context as to what makes 1955 such a big deal and the role Guinness has in all this in terms of "verified." So, this page would look different enough from what is here now, and what you propose, that the better solution would be to do a different page. The lists I see here would not be so different from what you propose, but different enough that we need something else. I believe what I have below better addresses these issues, based on your comments, and on the comments of others here. I've not rewritten the amended sections yet, I felt it made sense to get this structure agreed upon (I don't think we are all too far off here), then we can redo the various bits of text. (I could do that, if need be, but doesn't need to be me.) Here is what seems to me to be the emerging consensus of what this page should look like:

The intro should, much more briefly, a) discuss Jeanne Calment and the Izumi controversy. And list the current record holder. It should then note b) that it was Guinness who started researching the oldest humans in earnest in 1955, and that their research is where we mark the start of the various lists, but that subsequent research has found some older claimants. And that standards of what is acceptable in terms of "verified" claims have emerged, and that information on this page reflects those standards and what Guinness and other established researchers have determined to be "accepted." And, further, incorporate the last two sections on the page into the intro: "Current trends in the lifespans of the oldest humans" and "Gerontology and the verification of age claims" as they relate directly to the research done here and the lists themselves and various claims. It would also be relevant to note that "1955" isn't necessarily arbritrary, as universal record-keeping in some countries was only just then making this sort of research possible. For example, In England, universal birth registration commenced in 1837, and its first usable census was in 1841. So it wasn't until the 1950s that extreme claims could be more readily assessed within England.

THEN, we move to the various lists:

1. ADD Pre-1955 progressive sequence of oldest-ever human title holders. So, we have Peters, then we have Filkins. Perhaps a note to indicate Filkins held the record until Izumi's claim.

2. Then, the list of successive holders of the oldest living person titles, as is.

3. OMIT the bit of trivia after the table listing who held the title longest, shortest etc.

4. OMIT oldest people in the world chart, as it has no real meaning until 1955, and really in my view doesn't add anything.

5. Then, the Oldest Men table as is.

6. ADD new table which lists oldest women when men held title of oldest person. What makes this list more pertinent is that given the controversy over Izumi's age, the "true" record holder may be within this list. So, the title could be "Oldest women when men held title of oldest living person."

7. ALTER "Oldest People Ever (115+)" chart, turn it from milestone table to arbritrary number table. That number, I feel, should be 15. (Not 10, as CP suggests.) In that way, we avoid the odd insistence of seeing a 10-deep list of men and not a 10-deep list of women. We should do this with both sets of charts, so we reduce the 115+ chart to 15, keep the oldest-ever men at 10, increase oldest living to 15 etc.

8. Oldest ever men, as is.

9. ALTER "Oldest validated people currently living (top 10)," make it a top 15 list instead, to be consistent with above list..

10. And retain the oldest living men list as is.

11. OMIT "Supercentenarians who died before 1955" list. What makes someone who died pre-1955 and lived to 110+ special? Only the fact that few were documented well enough to be proved. Not sure that that is much of an "achievement," more just dumb luck.

12. Retain "Nation of death (oldest first)" list, though I thought this was National Records. Seems this has not been completely resolved.

13. OMIT "Emigrant records (oldest first)" list. Seems more an excuse to list certain favoured individuals. It's a rather contrived record, IOW>

14. OMIT the "Gerontology and the verification of age claims" and "Current trends in the lifespans of the oldest humans" sections, they should be more concisely written and put into the intro.

Canada Jack (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm getting a better picture and, you're right, it would require a completely different version than mine. I will not make any changes to the actual page until I see your version and we (we being all interested editors) discussing things. From my understanding, it seems that our versions would agree on your points #2-5, 8 and 10-14 (#13 doesn't agree with my version now, but I am completely indifferent as to whether that section stays or goes and completely agree with your reasoning). I also agree with your ideas for the introduction wholeheartedly, if you're willing to put in that much work. I don't have an opinion on #1, because I want to see it first so that I completely understand it. So the major differences would be #7 and #9.

From my list of changes, our versions would agree on all but #3 (with #7 and #8 greatly improved upon in your version). Hopefully that summarizes all the differences, but please point out any errors I have made. Cheers, CP 18:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It definitely sounds good to me as well. Extremely sexy (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If we get a situation where we have several men in the top 10 oldest people (which in my opinion could happen soon), I think we should change the lists to the top 10 oldest women, and top 10 oldest men. However, as a change to what was previously suggested on a different topic: I think we should rank these by how they rank among the oldest in the world, while highlighting the different sexes using colours, or a column. This would solve a couple of issues: 1. You can see the top 10 oldest women, and men, and the top 10 oldest in the world. Currently, if a man gets into the top 10, you will only see the top 9 oldest women.

2. Space. Two tables shortened into one.

I agree with omitting the graph. I don't think it adds anything, and is actually confusing. For example, Izumi died after Beard, but was also born before. Yet it looks like Beard was the holder before him because he died before Izumi. Rather than be dots, they should really be lines to track each person until their death, and then pick up on the next person. But even that doesn't add much to the article.

I don't agree with #1. As Izumi's case is disputed, I feel the alternative list should be used alongside it, or neither.

As for #6, I agree that this is fair, but I think we should try to incorporate them into the main table (oldest people). Having a table for the oldest women would either be too long (if you add all of them), or too sparse (if you add only those who were the oldest woman, but younger than the oldest man). The latter would also make the table confusing.

1. 7 My idea for the oldest living people table would also apply here, would also do away with all-female tables, and would be shorter by doing away with men who appear in both tables.
2. 11 "What makes someone who died pre-1955 and lived to 110+ special?" Because they were the Jeanne Calments of yesteryear. Back then it was extremely rare, far more than today, to reach 110. I agree that the table should go, but I disagree that they aren't special. However I feel some of these cases should be represented in the introduction to show a short history of the oldest people and how there weren't very many at all until the latter part of the 20th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiameseTurtle (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added more to "my version" of this article on my userpage, although it is still a work in progress as I have been, and will be quite busy for the next couple of weeks. The main area that I haven't yet touched is the introduction. However I think a short(ish) section about the history would be a good idea, perhaps with small tables showing the progressive records (including those who would have been the oldest if Izumi is discounted). SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reread some of the previous discussions here and realize that the reasons for #13 aren't as trivial as I thought - it ensures that people born in a country but die elsewhere are recognized. So, make it...

13. RETAIN "Emigrant records"

As for the other comments, the issue with the oldest people/men lists is that there is really no separate compilation for women. So, instead of creating something new by making separate male/female lists (which I would say most here don't want as I've suggested it to no avail), making the oldest people lists 15 deep solves the problem by practically guaranteeing at least 10 women make it, followed by a 10-deep list of men.

AS for the critque of #1 - list Peters and Filkins - there may be a dispute on Izumi, but that is what we have in terms of pre-1955. We could just as easily say that, to 1955, these were the all-time record-holders, and Filkins held the record until at least the 1970s. The other pre-1955ers don't come into it.

As for #6, we must appreciate, this will be a rather short list as we only have 25 June 1959 - 16 March 1962; 10 Jan 1966 - 21 March 1968; Izumi's reign from 1976 to 1986; and the several weeks in 2006/07 when del Toro was world's eldest. A grand total of four spans held by males. And in some of these cases, we may be talking about the same woman who succeeded as world's elder anyway. The reason I think it is important is because Izumi's reign was so long - just short of a decade - and the "real" record-breaker, if Izumi's claim is not true, may very well have been someone who has never had the proper recognition they deserve.

# 11 "What makes someone who died pre-1955 and lived to 110+ special?" Because they were the Jeanne Calments of yesteryear. Back then it was extremely rare, far more than today, to reach 110.

No, there were two "Jeanne Calments" - Peters and Filkins. Period. The others, as I have pointed out, are the only verified cases, and the rarity there is, as gerontologists point out, owing to the scarcity of reliable records, not necessarily to the lack of old people. The same applies to current countries where we see many 110+ in places like Japan, USA, Europe, but not in "third world" countries, in large part owing to the comprehensiveness of the records in the former for some 150 years or so, and the lack of the same in the latter. Canada Jack (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text for the intro. As mentioned above, the intro needs a re-do in my proposal, so here is something along the lines of what I was thinking, shortening some of the info already there, and incorporating some of the latter stuff (since all the statements are really just re-wording of what is already there, this should be fine, though I've not put all the sources and links in the following...):

The longest unambiguously documented lifespan is that of Jeanne Calment of France (1875–1997), who died aged 122 years and 164 days. More evidence for the Calment case has been produced than for any other supercentenarian case, which makes her case a gold standard among the oldest people recordholders. This is contrasted with the now-disputed claim of age 120 for the oldest man ever, Shigechiyo Izumi. While this case is currently still recognized by Guinness World Records, subsequent research has raised doubt as to whether his birth date was confused with that of a brother who died at a young age.

Since the death of Yone Minagawa on August 13, 2007, the oldest living person is 115 year-old Edna Parker of the U.S., who was born on April 20, 1893.[3] She and Maria de Jesus of Portugal are the only validated surviving people who were alive in 1893.

The lists on this page largely reflect the efforts since 1955 of Guinness World Records, considered the authority, in compiling national records and setting standards for documenting claims. However, the study of gerontology is usually credited to Michel Eugène Chevreul, a French chemist who died in 1889, aged 102. Several factors have led to the large number of people proven to have celebrated their 110th birthday ("Supercentenarians"). Lifestyle and health improvements since the 19th century have meant people live longer lives. And better and more universal record-keeping allows claims to be authenticated. Only ten supercentarians who died before 1955 have been verified. Since then, more than 1,000 individuals have celebrated their 110th birthday and have had their claims documented.

All lists on the page or for those individuals with verified claims, though some cases are disputed. Those cases are noted.

Canada Jack (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I misspoke above, of course. I forgot Martha Graham was the record holder after Filkins, and held the record until at least Izumi's time. Canada Jack (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To put my point of view into perspective: Supercentenarians dying before 1900 number just 2. Those from 1900-1949 number just 6. Those from 1950-2000 number over 500. We've seen an exponential increase in the numbers of supercentenarians in the last 50 years. Fifty years ago it was far more rare than today to reach 110. I think the first few supercentenarians are of high importance because they were the very special few. In today's terms it would probably be akin to reaching 116. You cannot base it on just age alone; circumstances were far different a century ago and didn't have many of the luxuries, such as better healthcare and surgery which many supercentenarians nowadays have lived through. From my understanding, Peter's case is disputed because the evidence is 'missing'. The first verifiable supercentenarian is Boomgaard, meaning Margaret Neve would have held the undisputed record. These were extreme ages in their days, just as the ages of Calment and Knauss are today. This really needs to be recognised in the article, as supercentenarians who may have reached 107 a century ago are now able to reach ages such as 112, and beyond. These were landmark cases and need to be exampled in this article to show how the field has changed over time. I also think this would be a good link from the introduction, to the start of the 1955+ table.SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just want to say, it's good we are having this discussion. From the above, it is clear that there is a lot more we can add to the pre-1955 section. It is not altogether clear as the page stands why all these individuals are on the page, so it seems prudent to note that only 10 or so people have been generally accepted to have proven 110+ year life-spans pre-1955 (as I did in my proposed intro). As to the specific point as to the novelty of those people pre-1955, while I agree that today it is far more common, it is not simply a matter, necessarily, that this reflects an exponential growth in the number of authentic supercentenarians. It also reflects the near-universal registration and comprehensive censuses occurring in many countries which allow for verification. In England and Wales, for example, we can only be certain about many individuals from about 1837 in terms of authenticating a birth date (most records previously are parish and record baptisms, death records were not universal). Only in 1841 was a usable census done, the 1851 census is far better. Here in Ontario, Canada where I live, compulsory registration started in 1869, though censuses were done in 1842 (but only head of household), then 1851 (many records missing) and 1861. The point is there may have been numerous other candidates, but it wasn't until the 1950s that we had near-universal records in many jurisdictions going back far enough to verify most of these claims. So, these individuals may or may not reflect the fact that extremely few people lived to be 110. But they may also reflect the fact that the sort of record keeping wasn't done until the 19th century in many places that would allow us to verify these claims until the 1950s or so.

If I can make a track analogy... If some high school in Nebraska had the only clock around that measured times to 1/100th of a second, and a bunch of students in 1850 were recorded doing 400 metres, we wouldn't say that Nebraska teens were track prodigies because only they recorded times in the event in question, as no one elsewhere did, we'd say there were many likely more capable athletes out there but they didn't have the timepiece available that the students had. If one of those marks was the fastest known, we'd note the mark. But we wouldn't make a list of the 10 best times from there as this was not necessarily representative of the time. In the same way, we definitely should note those pre-1955 individuals who set the records - so, Peters, Boomgard, Neve and Filkins - but not the others as we have no way to know whether these individuals were so rare as to be notable, or were some of a relatively high number of individuals but remarkably, in an era of scant documentation, there are enough records extant to verify their claims.

For that reason, while I now see the justification for keeping Neve as to the dispute over Peters, I don't see the point in keeping Pouder, Thiers, Bannister, Philipovich, Plunket and Svien. Canada Jack (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, at the risk of making too many major changes at once, I suggest we do the least controversial changes first. Part of the benefit of Wikipedia is the cumulative effect of editing over time. One of the problems with pre-1955 data is that it is loose and disconnected, making it unreliable to recognize an "oldest person" continuously. However, there were a few emergent super-cs before 1955, such as Filkins, where it is more than obvious who was the oldest at that time.

Another point to ponder is the old static-state theory ("people have always lived the same length of time, they are only increasing in number today") to the dynamic change theory (maximum life span is a function of population size and life expectancy). In other words, it has been suggested that the first centenarians emerged with the advent of agriculture, and the first supercentenarians with the Industrial Revolution. Technological advances, advances in medicine, and in the treatment of disease have resulted in macro-scale shifts that, while not changing the human genome much, have resulted in people living longer today, maximally, in the past. Some of my research in 2002 showed that in Western Europe, the maximum reported reliable ages increased steadily since at least the 1200s. Thus, I do not think we can conclude that lack of records alone can justify a conclusion that people once lived to 110+. In one more consideration, while China has 1.3 billion people today and the USA just 300 million, by age 100 the US has 80,000 centenarians to 20,000 in China. Thus the idea that "if China has 1.3 billion people, then surely they must have someone there aged 120" is faulty (aside from the demographers estimating that the odds of reaching 120 are closer to 10 billion to 1). In other words, the verified data trend over time may be a bit more conservative than reality, but perhaps not by as much as the human imagination of even educated people would take us. Ryoung122 04:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Another comment, this article is too list-bound. It should have an opening section that points out very solid reasons as to the believability of the mainstream scientific viewpoint of the maximum observed human life span. For example, England once had claimants like Thomas Parr ("152") but since the advent of compulsory birth registration, not even a claim older than 115 in England has been made in more than a century. Thus, the advent of recordkeeping not only resulted in more valid data, but also killed the English myth of longevity. Perhaps more could be added to the longevity myths article, and it is mentioned as a sort of "for further information."

Second, we should also point out that just as some choose a religious (or nationalist, ideological, etc) viewpoint over a scientific one, the longevity claims article provides a secondary view, allowing Wikipedia to be pluralistic in this regard. Perhaps this article should in fact be renamed "Verified Oldest People"--but there also must be a case made that the "verifiable" viewpoint is closer to reality than the other views. In other words, the rules of validation weren't made to stop real supercentenarians from being accepted; that is merely a byproduct. No one should believe that 138 is currently possible, scientifically. Considering the billion-dollar offers made for proof of survival to 130+ remain unclaimed, that says a lot. Ryoung122 04:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What about making a new page for the chronological list of oldest people and men? Inevitably that will have to happen in the future at some point as the list is only going to keep on growing. I think the list (especially the first one) is particularly long, and some of the earlier cases aren't entirely significant either (such as Lovisa Svennsson, Ellen Dart). Perhaps these tables could be trimmed to the last 10 or 15 entries, while linking to the entire table on a new main article. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a sensible idea. If the oldest ever and oldest living are restricted to 10 then for consistency the chronological lists could be limited to the last 10 with the full lists just a click away. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This makes NO SENSE AT ALL and simply smacks of RECENTIST bias. If someone was 109 and the world's oldest in the 1960s, that is just as significant as being 115 and the world's oldest today. In fact, the point is not simply to promote Lovisa Svensson but to show us how the maximum life span is improving over time. Do you not see this? The most important part of the article is the "oldest living" person. Too bad some people are so focused on the present that the past means little or nothing to them.Ryoung122 08:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it quite insulting to say that I am biased towards recent cases. I have already argued that older cases should be kept on this page because "these were landmark cases and need to be exampled in this article to show how the field has changed over time". As for the most important part of the article, I don't necessarily agree. It's up to us to decide what information someone visiting this article might want, and I personally think that a lot of those people would be looking to see who the oldest people currently living are, and the oldest people ever. I don't think as many would be trying to find out who the former oldest persons in the world were. The lists aren't going to get shorter and it will get to a point where they will need an article on their own. I feel this page should be a main summary page where people can go to a more detailed article if they want to. There are too many branches on the subject to show everything on a single page. Currently the 'oldest living people' section takes up around half of the article (especially since their ages have been added). SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't sugarcoat things for you, Siamese Turtle, but we all carry our personal biases. To think that one is not biased in some way seems a bit naive (at best). Now, about the argument here: Do we delete from the list of presidents those from the 1800s? Do we shorten the list of the kings of England by deciding that anyone from before 1300 is too long ago? Do we delete from the list of tennis champions those from more than 30 years ago? The World Almanac may do just that, but Wikipedia is not paper: there is no need for it.

However, I will suggest that perhaps we could find a compromise: make a "main article" that includes very detailed information [such as "age of accession"...Edna Parker took the title at 114 years 115 days; many people may be interested to compare this to how old the other persons were when they took the title. After creating such a "main article," the version on the "Oldest People" page could be pared by removing the day count (instead of "Auguste Pahl died at 109 years 243 days" she died at 109)]. I'd prefer removing the bells and whistles to making substantive cuts.Ryoung122 08:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Uncontroversial changes

Per above, is there any objection to going through the uncontroversial changes and making them (removing highlighting, remove the graph, citing things, remove links that just re-link here etc. etc.)? If not, I'd like to do them in the next day or so before this page becomes so different from the version that we were working on. Then we can focus on the rest of the changes; I noted somewhere way above those items that we all seem to agree upon. Cheers, CP 16:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, I don't see a need to remove the highlighting. For those looking for the current "oldest living" person, it helps them to find it quickly (while also leaving behind the list from the past for those who favor that perspective). The graph also shows a historic progression over time (although it would be better to do a continuous line graph, not just a "point in time"). So perhaps we could leave the graph for now with the expectation that a better one needs to be done? I don't think removing double redirects is an issue, so let's start with that. Also, adding citations is usually a positive (unless the citations are poor or overly numerous). Finally, there is the issue of "Canada Jack's" version...how has that progressed?Ryoung122 07:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since nothing was going to get done otherwise, I went ahead and made all but four of my seventeen proposed changes. I didn't:

1. Trim the oldest people down to the Top 10, because there's obviously no consensus to do that. We should, however, decide where we want to draw the cut off point (stop at 25? keep it at 115+?) Personally, I believe that this page is already information overload to the extreme, so the shorter we can make it (it'll all still be available at its main page), the better.
2. Remove the two large sections at the bottom, because I didn't feel that there was a clear consensus to do so, but I did tag them as requiring citations
3. Add notes for or remove all "?" and "disputed" comments, because I wanted to give people an opportunity to properly cite them before I remove them.
4. Enact some minor fixes and changes

Hopefully my actions will initiate the same sort of activity that occurred on List of living supercentenarians when I made some big changes there. Cheers, CP 16:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from Canada. I'm in Montreal right now at the Seventh Annual Supercentenarian Workshop (hosted by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research), and there could be some surprises in the coming months---including on Kamato Hongo.

I do think that your cuts overall helped shift focus from the simple mindset that this is just a fantasy-baseball stats page. However, if the focus be encyclopedic, then a long historical view is needed. Therefore I do suggest a graph of the age of the oldest persons over time is needed. I did note that the graph you deleted had some deficiencies (using points instead of lines, no trend lines) but this article still needs revamping in the text sections...more added, not more deleted.

Interestingly, yesterday I found out that Statistics Canada has been following the oldest Canadians on the GRG website. confidential data did list a Canadian aged 111 in New Brunswick earlier this year...we can infer who this is. Ryoung122 06:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)