Talk:Oldest people/Archive 14

Indication that World's oldest man is from Thailand

As referred to in the linked article, indications are that the world's oldest man is Luang Pu Supha, abbot of Luang Pu Supha temple in Chalong Phuket, Thaiand. Claims are that he is 4 days older than Walter Breuning who is currently listed as the world's oldest man by Guinness.

http://www.phuketgazette.net/news/index.asp?id=7736 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfred333 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This claim is unverified, and, as one can see on the longevity claims page, there are at least seven other claims for living males 113+ years old, even more if one includes limbo claims, so Luang Pu Supha is way down the list. Canada Jack (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The oldest person on record is methuselah who lived to be 969 years of age, acording to the Bible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannyboy (talk • contribs) 19:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

See Longevity myths. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Beard still a disputed case

I've checked with RobertYoung re Matthew Beard appearing to be no longer disputed in the GRG list and this is his respone: "No, this case is still disputed, and that status likely won't change. If a new GRG table inadvertently didn't have italics, that was unintentional.Ryoung122 03:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)". Should we wait for the GRG list to be corrected or just go ahead and revert? {Copied to Talk:List of the verified oldest people and Talk:List of the verified oldest men} Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oldest person

Oldest person was from Kazakhstan, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1180580/Worlds-oldest-woman-dies-130--slipping-bathroom-new-flat-given-celebrate-age.html

She is in Longevity claims where, as an unverified claimant, she belongs. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Daily Mail is not a very reliable source, it's more of a comic, to be honest.

 Not done 94.196.92.39 (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Should Cruz Hernandez be added to the list?

What are people's thought's on Cruz Hernández?

National birth records indicated that her birth date was valid but as neither the Guinness Book of World Records or the Gerontology Research Group confirmed this she fails to be included on the list. Should their lack of confirmation be enough reason for her not to be listed? Should she at least get a mention in the "disputed claims" section? Even though truth is neither the GBWR or GRG has officially disputed the claim, they have never confirmed it either. So what should be done in terms of her inclusion on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narios (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

She is just one of many unverified people who supposedly has a birth certificate "proving" her age. Along with those others she belongs in the Longevity claims article but not here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if that's the case then what is the difference between her and the other people listed in the "dispuetd claims" section of this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narios (talk) 13:33, 9 Novemmber 2009 (UTC)

The disputed claims on this page are people who were verified by the standards of the time but have since been brought into question. Longevity claims are for those people who have never been verified by a reputable body (such as GRG). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why her claim isn't on the disputed claims page,

Actually she is on the longevity claims page. A claim there is not necessarily disputed; it just means that it hasn't been accepted internationally. Scientific publications are firmly behind the Jeanne Calment case as the proven upper limit of the human life span. In the case of Cruz Hernandez, there hasn't even been an application to Guinness, the GRG, the Max Planck Institute, or any major international body that investigates such claims. One must first make an application before it can be reviewed.

Wikipedia is not the place for original research, either. If a claim is not accepted by the outside, reliable sources, neither should it be accepted as such by Wikipedia.Ryoung122 11:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

but as for her birth date being validated, I'm not aware that is the case. It's not that I deny there is a birth record for one Cruz Hernandez, it's that the sort of documentation to validate someone of this age would need to go far beyond just a birth record. One would have to connect life events and census records to the same individual. The first basic question, once provided a birth record, is how do we know the person in the birth record and the elderly woman are one and the same?

Take a look at the oldest verified claimant, Jeanne Calment, and the evidence which established the veracity of her claim. [[1]] Her birth record exists, which is certainly an important piece of evidence, but so does a long chain of contemporary documentation which corroborates this woman's long life. Canada Jack (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, there is the issue of local vs. national vs. international. Guinness World Records, the GRG, or even "The Top Ten of Everything 2010" are third-party vetting sources, removed from the localist or nationalist bias. Let's take a claim such as Seher Bulut to be '122'. Her age was 'verified' by a Turkish doctor, but on closer examination, there was no birth record, and there was a 62-year age gap between her and her youngest child...suggesting that not only was there no evidence of birth, but that the claim was likely exaggerated.

In the Cruz Hernandez case, reports of documentation aren't the same as documentation. If the records exist, surely they can be produced to the appropriate authorities, whomever that may be. As it is/was, that was not the case.Ryoung122 11:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Halime Olcay

I found this article today: http://www.aptn.com/80256FE9003EF444/%28httpStories%29/48366ABC36A9C53880257678005E1757?OpenDocument&day=25&month=11&year=2009&feed=horizons&viewtype=day&section=horizons

Any other sightings? She would be the leader by far. Chelman (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

135 is so far beyond the bounds of credibility she would not even qualify for Longevity claims, let alone this page (which is for verified persons). Perhaps Longevity myths. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Halime Olcay sighting with video http://en.rian.ru/video/20091126/156990606.html , though I don't really believe it yet. Simanos (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hillard Hudson

He died November 6th, so his name should be removed. 74.249.144.59 (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/tuscaloosa/obituary.aspx?n=hillard-hudson&pid=136032400 here is a source. 74.249.144.59 (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removal of unnecessary and inaccurate information

At present we have the supposed length of time someone has been the oldest person/man. This information was added after an attempt to include details of "longest" and "shortest" spans was outvoted and was not questioned at the time. This information is inaccurate (because not only does the variation in timezone often make them a day out but the number of disputed cases {especially Izumi} makes them often meaningless. In addition they do not enhance the look of the page and, if I read Talk:Oldest people#Age range above correctly the excessive detail does not aid the average user's understanding of the article. I propose this detail be removed in a week unless there is consensus to the contrary. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. We already removed details such as "acceded to the title at 114 years 124 days." Length of reign is useful for people to understand the relative importance of a particular case. Izumi, even if false, is important (culturally) because he dominated the record books for years and years. Also, some argue that having the title is an ephemeral "event" but length of reign shows that is often not the case.Ryoung122 22:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What "relative importance"? There may be some importance to members of the GRG but that doesn't apply to the general user of this page. This page is not about the relative merits of any "recordholder" it is merely a list (or several lists) of them. Cluttering up the tables with excessive trivia is not going to aid the casual readers understanding of who is currently deemed to have been the recordholder and when they held that title. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely we'd all agree that Queen Elizabeth II's reign, even nominally, is of more importance than that of a monarch who lasted only 325 days. Likewise, it is clear that someone holding the "world's oldest" title for a long time (say, 9 years) has had more impact than someone who held the title for 13 days.Ryoung122 11:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a valid comparison. First, unlike rulers or active figures, no official role or duties are conferred upon the holder of the 'world's oldest' title, so the duration of their reign doesn't have the same impact on their importance. Pope John Paul II, for instance, was able to accomplish far more than many of his predecessors not just because of the man that he was, but because of the comparatively longer amount of time he spent in St. Peter's throne. With the 'world's oldest' title we often don't even hear much more from them than we do from other supercentenarians (and indeed false claimants to the title). Often all we get is a birthday announcement and perhaps a comment or two from the title holder themselves. As a result, Calment's long reign had no greater impact even in the world of supercentenarians than those who held it for much shorter spans.

THAT'S COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS. Jeanne Calment's long reign "changed the way scientists think about aging." She was covered in magazines such as Time Magazine, which in 1993 did a story about "turning back the clock on aging", and not just for a "birthday story." It also changed the way demographers looked at their mortality models, and caused them to come up with new hypotheses (such as "mortality deceleration" by James Vaupel). You can't say the same thing for Mitoyo Kawate or Emma Tillman, whose short reigns at most filled in small gaps (their successors were also 114). If you don't know about this subject enough to contribute, there are plenty of other ones on Wikipedia to edit.Ryoung122 04:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But it wasn't Jeanne Calment's "reign" per se which changed the way scientists think, it was the fact of her extreme age. And that is all that we are saying here. I'd say it is far more relevant that there hasn't been an "oldest" claimant who wasn't at least 114 since 1991, while in the 60s and the 70s, the oldest person was often under 110. So, if someone today who reaches 115 then dies, her "reign" may only last a year. If she had been that age 40 years ago, she could had been world's oldest for six or seven years. The best we can say is that length of reign in general reflects the mean norm of world's oldest for a particular era. So, the "norm" now is 114, 115 or so. Those who reign for longer are among the oldest people ever, top 10 or 15. But I am sure this is, statistically, what we'd expect. I don't feel particularly strongly about removing the length of the reign, it's just I don't see it as being very relevant. Canada Jack (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, this also suffers from the same issues that many pages of this kind do. As time progresses we have more people with verifiable birth and life event records, resulting in generally shorter reigns in recent decades than in prior ones. Obviously there are exceptions such as Calment, but she is a notable exception, and not particularly indicative of a trend worth tracking overall. In addition to better record keeping, world events and even steady improvements in medical science have led to shifts in lifespan that have inflated the population at the top reaches significantly. This also exerts a donward pressure on the length of reign as world's oldest as they approach the presumed biological limits of human lifespan. As a result of these factors, the reliability of the data as a representation of a useful fact is questionable. aremisasling (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a good reason to KEEP the information. As you mention, in theory the reigns should become shorter as the "rectangularization of the mortality curve" means that more and more people reach age 114. But will they? Have they? Even in 2009, Gertrude Baines held a 13-month age gap over her successor, and two of the last three titleholders have held the title for at least six months. Also, there is a disagreement among scientists as to whether there really is a "biological upper limit" and how flexible this limit is. Such statistics come in handy for people trying to get some idea of how long the titleholders are lasting today, as compared to the past. Finally, if the "maximum life span" pushes upward again like it did in the 1990s, one would expect the length of reigns to increase again. Persons such as Walter Breuning, who has tried new methods to achieve longevity (such as caloric restriction) might cause a new era of higher records, and thus longer reigns.

Finally, the length of reign is only one number per entry, so there's no chance of additional clutter from having it.Ryoung122 04:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that in this category, length of "reign" is somewhat trivial. It's not an achievement per se, as the length of reign is dependent on other people dying before the claimant in question. It's more a reflection on the general lack of or abundance of very elderly people. And, it's not always true that a lengthy "reign" is more notable. The most famous holder of the world record for the mile run - Roger Bannister - is also the man who held the record for the shortest amount of time, a mere six weeks or so. In the end, I doubt many people pay much attention to how long someone holds a record in this category. Canada Jack (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, though, Roger Bannister was a quirk of the fascination with the "4-minute" barrier. People like "round numbers." I think a more valid comparison would be the long jump, where Bob Beamon's record lasted 23 years. That alone makes it a more important record than, for example, Usain Bolt's 9.72 which he broke himself a few months later.Ryoung122 04:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, who can name the longest record-holder in the mile for the past 100 years? It happens to be Hicham El-Guerroj, the current record-holder but he is not generally known outside of sports circles. Beamon's record was indeed very important, as was Owen's and, now, Powell's. But it didn't become an "important" record because it lasted 23 years, it was important because it so hugely broke the previous record. It's importance, in other words, was recognized the day it was set. As was Powell's. As for Bolt, his 9.72 was set at a relatively small meet, but when he shattered that record in Beijing, it was instantly seen as one of the great achievements ever in track. The fact that record has now been broken - it lasted exactly a year - doesn't diminish the importance of what he did. Indeed, perhaps the most famous 100 meter runner of all time - Carl Lewis - only held the record for about three years. Who remembers Calvin Smith who held the record for about the same amount of time? Canada Jack (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of dragging the track and field analogy too far (easily done for a fan like myself) a few points. Track and field records are verified under certain restrictions (eg wind allowance and equipment) and have been enhanced considerably by technology. Owens' record lasted longer than Beamon's but Beamon's was the greater improvement (aided by all-weather run-up and altitude). If there was a suspicion that the record should have been invalidated (there are rumours the wind gauge was not operated properly) then the length of time he held the record would be meaningless (as with Izumi). An even more appropriate comparison would be Flo-Jo's 100m record (which was almost cetainly (in my opinion is 99.999% certain) wind aided and if the relevant officials ever admit they stuffed up or the IAAF were prepared to bite the bullet and rescind it for that (and other reasons) it would not stand for another 50 years (which it probably will). Also, I for one think that Calvin SMith would have beated Carl Lewis in 1984 had he not been injured prior to the trials. Back to gerontology. This page is not an exposition of gerontological thought, implying that the casual user will gain an insight into longevity by being given such details as the length of the "reigns" of the oldest people assumes too much. It is also not the purpose of this article. It is ALSO misleading as the Izumi case is questionable. It ALSO does not improve the look of t he article (this may not seem important but if we are trying to create good quality articles overloading it with unnecessary information and thereby cluttering up the page should be taken into consideration). As the scope of this article is largely to summarise information from other articles it really does not need the inclusion of what is essentially trivia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, for me the salient point is that the "importance" of a record is not necessarily measured by the length of time it stands, but usually many other factors. In the same way, if someone lives to be 124, but there was someone else born a month before who lived to die on her 122nd birthday, living to 124 is not diminished by the historical coincidence of another 120+-year-old that she was "only" the oldest person for two years, a "paltry" reign in comparison to Izumi's 9+ years and Calment's 6+ years. Indeed, since Izumi's claim was disputed and Calment's predecessor to the title, who held it for 3+ years was also disputed, one has to wonder just how meaningful this is in the end anyway.

IOW, while many people pay attention to someone who turns, say 118, I'm not sure anyone pays any attention to the "reign" of these people outside of gerontology circles. Canada Jack (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a 3-1 consensus that this information should be removed. Unless that changes within the next week I will go ahead and remove it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What's inaccurate is you saying that the information is "inaccurate" when, in fact, it is accurate. As for necessary, I think the article is better with it. I also don't see "consensus" to remove. What I see are a few loud opinions and the consensus is to KEEP, as readers of the article haven't complaiined about it, but seem to like it the way it is.Ryoung122 07:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Readers occasionally do complain about things on wikipedia, but in general from what I've seen you don't hear much from the users one way or another. I wouldn't take their silence to be approval, tacit or otherwise, of the status quo. From the comments we do have it does appear to lean towards removing it though Wikipedia is not a democracy. The opinions, loud or otherwise, in support of the removla are more numerous than the opinions to keep as a basic fact. Though after a month's removal from the topic, I think I'll move my vote to neutral. While I still don't see a lot of utility in it, there really isn't much in the way of damage that can come from it, and it does provide a piece of information people may be interested in. It's still a very minor detail that's more about coincidence than it is about any telling facts, even with the previous discussion on the rectangularization of the sc ages. aremisasling (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It os inaccurate because time zone differential means that such "records" could be a day out. It is also potentially highly inccurate because of the disputed cases like Izumi. The argument that readers of the article haven't complaiined about it" doesn't hold either: I am complaining about it. It would be a more valid to process to remove it and see if there are any complaints (other than your's Robert). This is a summary page with abbreviated lists from other articles EXCEPT the lists of the oldest person/man which don't have their own article(s). They should have (which I have suggested before), and all the trivia as well as explanations of disputed cases and lists of undisputed cases only could be included there. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Robert on his point about "inaccurate." You are conflating "precision" with "accuracy," Derby. While it is true that if one knows the hour of birth and the hour of death one can with more precision state a person's age, this does not mean that only knowing the day of birth and the day of death is any less accurate - it would be just as accurate, though not as precise. And, as long as we are aware of the level of precision found here - to the day - and the margin of error - roughly 48 hours - then we are on firm ground. Canada Jack (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I also have to agree on that point. It's accurate to within a day or two, depending on hour of death (data we don't have) and time zone (ditto). Izumi's disputed record is a problem regardless of whether the "length of record" is included. The downside of including "length of record" information seems extremely minimal, and the upside -- well, it's extra information, of interest to some. However, what the "days in parentheses" mean could stand to be explicitly explained: the column heading could be changed to "To (total)", or a sentence could be added above the table that summarizes what the table and its columns contain.

--Father Goose (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not really necessary. Most people mark their birthday when the date arrives - they don't wait to the time of day they were born, nor do they consult astronomical tables to ensure the sidereal year is accounted for. IOW The margin of error is implicit as most people count a day as starting at midnight, not at the hour and minute of their birth. Canada Jack (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

116-year-old german

In the german Wikipedia this case is under Discussion: [2] Has GRG ever heard of it? How should it be handled? I don't think that it is likely he reached this age but his birth- and deathdate are well proofed. --Dangermouse600 (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Theodore Sypnier

I wonder if the world's oldest sex offender (age 100) is notable, see [3]. What do you all think? Bearian (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article? it says that this man is the oldest in NY state, NOT the world...it even lists a 103-year-old sex offender in Utah.Ryoung122 05:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the quote:

"Although his age makes him New York's oldest registered sex offender, there is at least one older offender elsewhere. Bert Jackson of Utah is 103 and living under home confinement."

In any case, this article is about oldest people in general, not specific things such as "oldest office worker" or "oldest sex offender."

Ryoung122 05:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not for this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if there were an article where it did fit, there's no doubt that it would sooner or later be declared a BLP violation and sentenced to death.--Father Goose (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Green rows?

I suggested here that the green rows found scattered throughout the article are not a good way to highlight... what, exactly?

The significance of the green is not mentioned anywhere in the article, and it's not obvious why some entries are highlighted and others aren't (including Bruening twice but Chinen only once). Plus it's a rather neon shade -- "Pay attention to me!" You don't want to be drawing the reader's attention to something when the significance of the attention is not immediately obvious and not otherwise explained.

After several minutes of looking over the tables, I was finally able to deduce that the rule is "living people who aren't in tables about living people". If it takes that long to figure out what the significance of the highlighting is, it's not an effective enhancement of the article.--Father Goose (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. Seems obvious to me what the green indicates. Canada Jack (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It loses its obviousness when the same individuals are highlighted in some lists but not in others. You are probably very familiar with these lists, so you know all the context that is, in fact, completely absent to someone seeing them for the first time. In the interest of WP:OBVIOUS, would you object to my adding a sentence explaining the significance of the highlighting?--Father Goose (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Another problem: "oldest living since 19xx" can be taken to mean "oldest ever" since that time (as opposed to "oldest currently living", which is unambiguous). Might I recommend an explanatory sentence at the top of the two "since 19xx" tables? Or maybe even changing the title of those two to something like "active recordholders since 19xx" and "active recordholding men since 19xx"?--Father Goose (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't get into original research. "Active" recordholders sounds silly...many of these people are doing little more than breathing. "Living" is what the outside sources say:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7013599773

Ryoung122 06:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a question of OR, it's a question of trying to maximize the clarity of the wording. I admit "active" is not the best possible wording, though I still think it's clearer than what's currently used. Without context, "oldest living people since 1955" sounds like "the oldest that have lived since that time", which makes it sound redundant with the main "oldest people ever" table. Its actual focus is "oldest alive at any given moment since 1955", but that is not self-evident from its current title.

How about "Longevity recordholders since 1955"? This parallels the naming approach used for the article national longevity recordholders. Or even just "Living recordholders since 1955"? I think I like that best.--Father Goose (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If others agree, under the current headline (oldest living people since 1955, etc) we could add a line something like "Successive holders of the world's oldest living people title since 1955. Some of the title-holders were recognized retrospectively." Replace "people" with "men" and "1955" with "1961" for the other list.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Canada Jack (talk • contribs)

That would work for me.--Father Goose (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Article length

In order to manage the overall length of article, removed a breakout of 'Men currently living aged over 110 years'. There will be men either among the top 10 living... or not, so be it. Either way, they could be listed at:List of living supercentenarians if over 110, or perhaps some 'currently living' variant of List of the verified oldest men.Cander0000 (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this change. Get consensus BEFORE making a change like this. There are actually several problems with this article but length isn't really one of them, and the chances of getting a consensus on making any sort of significant cleanup appears remote (judging from previous experience). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, but an incremental step might get it closer to resolving the "...several problems..." to which you allude. I think this article could eventually evolve into a developed article as well as having a list o' people. Any specific objections to removing the list of 'Men currently living aged over 110 years'?Cander0000 (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that most of the regular users who contribute to this article will object so I would object to its removal without allowing at least a week to achieve consensus. I also think that although there are only 2 men in the list at the moment that is not a good enough reason to remove it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring this section. I have been following the "oldest men" section for a couple of years, and was irritated that it had just been removed. Apparently, unless there is someone who was born after December 14, 1899, we now have only two verified men from the 1800's. As we see the eventual elimination of all men, then all people who were born in this century, it remains essential that we have this updated list. I have posted this without signing in because I do not seek to take an active role in the editing here. Only two other times have I had a problem with eliminations from this page. One was when "gold standard" was eliminated from the description of Mrs. Calment's life span. The other was the record of the oldest living tissue from a corneal transplant.

216.134.11.32 (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)B. Parsons

I feel that if the "men currently living" section is retained, it should include the 10 oldest currently living, not "whoever happens to be > 110". Is such data available?--Father Goose (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, this page is exclusively for "supercentenarians," and a human being must have attained the age of 110 to be recognized as such. However, there are several female supercentanarians who are currently not on the page, but can be found in a separate section. This was one reason I think that the "oldest men" section should be permanently retained; there are only two verified male supercentanarians at this point. There will be others, such as John Babcock, in the next year.

216.134.11.32 (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)B Parsons

There is a more practical reason for listing only 110+ males. Generally, claims are not verified until the candidate reaches that age. So, instead of mixing verified and unverified claims in a single list, only those verified super-c's are included. Canada Jack (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, is there anyone on this site who has anyone currently undergoing verification? I would be interested to know if we will have any more men from the 1800's to add to our list. The dwindling of the list to just two men was very sudden, and I would like to think that perhaps there are a few more who can be verified.

216.134.11.32 (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)B Parsons

Go to the List of living supercentenarians page where both verified and unverified superc's are listed (though there is currently a debate on what claimants from which countries can make the latter list). There are two men on the latter list, but it does not seem likely these men will be verified as they've been on the list past their claimed 111th birthdays. Go to the talk page to see a list of people who are within three months or so of turning 110. The next known man (there may be unreported claimants) is Stanley Lucas who would reach the claimed age of 110 on January 15 if, of course, he survives the month. So there are no more men verified alive likely to emerge who were born in the 1800's. But, there are still men who were born in the 19th century likely to reach 110 (that century's last day was December 31, 1900). Canada Jack (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, CJ, this is exactly the information I was looking for. It was very interesting reading in the discussion room you cited. I appreciate your help.

216.134.11.32 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)B Parsons

Apparently there are no other men in the process of validation. However I believe there are a couple of Japanese males born in 1899, but they are currently anonymous. The bottom line really is that we can't have an official list without official verification. While I agree, it would be better if we did have a top 10 list of males, there's no international organisation that regularly verifies ages below 110 so we can't legitimately do that. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We should also point out that about a year ago there were 10 living male super-c's, so we are currently at an unusual time where there are so few males over 110. Generally, the ratio is around 10:1 in terms of female vs male, but we current have 40:1. Canada Jack (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, the "oldest living male" list is at the lowest point it's been in the past decade (having reached a previous low of 4 several years back). It's very likely to go back up in 2010. The "class of 1900" is a strong male field, with the oldest men in the UK, Norway, Belgium, France, etc. all born in 1900. The huge gap may have been a statistical fluke. In the past ten years, the number of validated 110-year-old males living at the same time has been as high as 16.Ryoung122 21:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We could at least put a note in the article explaining things to this effect. You know me, I'm all about explaining stuff. Considering the shortness of the table has prompted the questions being discussed here, I feel it can't hurt.--Father Goose (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: if there are official records of sub-centenarians, why don't we add them to the list? I think a list of "the 10 oldest men" is more useful than a list of "the only two above 110". If such records aren't actually official, then my note was not erroneous.--Father Goose (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Obviously, there are official records for men under 110...the question, though, is about ranking. Currently, the GRG and the www.recordholders.org sites only accept claims to 110+. What if a man were 109 1/2 and hasn't applied yet because the family knows he's not 110 yet? More to the point: the family of Garland Adair, for example, didn't report him until several months after his 110th birthday. There is a certain 'reporting fatigue' until the persons' age reaches a point where someone feels on reporting it. If we just make up our own list, it will be biased in favor of Europeans...because Europe is divided into many small countries, and the oldest man in Belgium is likely to be reported, but a 108-year-old man in Japan or the U.S. might not get attention, unless a war veteran.Ryoung122 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, none of these lists will ever contain "oldest in the world"; they'll contain "oldest reported and confirmed". (And even then they may contain errors.) If a list of "10 oldest men known" has to be padded with "oldest in Belgium" and the like, that's fairly interesting in its own right, and still factually accurate: "these are the oldest that are known of at this time". Then you reshuffle if others come forward and displace them.--Father Goose (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Case in point: list of living supercentenarians only contains 131 verified+unverified out of an estimated 400 worldwide. It's not a true list of the oldest, but a list of what is known. There will probably be more "overlooked" 109-year-olds than 110-year-olds due to the nature of reporting, but that needn't stop us from sharing what data is available. We can note that the data is unconfirmed, or that the individuals "were alive last year" as long as we cite appropriately.--Father Goose (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference, however. For the "oldest living person" list, it's general knowledge that applicants are accepted starting at age 110. So, someone has FOUR years, at least, to apply. So, not being listed is no excuse.

However, suppose there is a hypothetical man born December 29, 1899 and lives in the U.S. There wouldn't even be a 110th birthday story yet because he's not 110 yet. Neither would the case be accepted because he's not 110 yet. Adding a subset of cases, like the oldest man in Belgium, is just filling vacancies with anyone you can find, rather than a fair vetting process that is, at least in theory, open to anyone in the world who can prove the age claimed.

Further, I think we should remember that we are already doing males a favor by having a male-only list. What about women who are 110, 111, 112?

The point of this article is OLDEST people...if someone is 108, 109 that's not really quite up there. Ryoung122 04:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you join the "110 Club" for speculation as to the top-ten oldest-known men. Speculation has its place, but I don't know if Wikipedia is that place. Also, the World's Oldest People webgroup discusses upcoming cases:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/

Ryoung122 04:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting speculation: I'm suggesting Wikipedia could have a completely factual list of "10 oldest known men", backed up by citations. I'm sure many of them could be culled from living national longevity recordholders, which appears to be fully cited. There is clearly a way to populate a "top 10" list in a completely rule-compliant and non-speculative manner. As for any possible "109-year-olds we don't know about", we can omit them with a clear conscience in the same way we omit the 200+ supercentenarians we don't know about.

As for "doing men a favor" by maintaining a separate list, given the nature of biology, we also "do women a favor" by maintaining separate athletic record lists. And that's the way it should be. "Oldest men" is oldest men. It's not like there's something illegitimate about maintaining a separate mens' list because the women happen to dominate the "oldest overall" list. We'd do the same for the women if the situation were reversed. We don't do it as a "favor"; we do it because it's of scholarly interest.--Father Goose (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What Robert's getting at here is the vetting process for old people doesn't start until they turn 110. Compiling a list of 109-year-olds would constitute original research as there is no vetted compilation of such people. Further, the field concentrates on supercentenarians - those who are over 110 - not "top 10" lists per se. If fewer than 10 people exceed 110 in a category, that category reports only those over 110. Let's not get too excited about "top 10" lists here - the current-day focus on claims is for those who reach that special milestone - 110 - 109-year-olds are, for the purposes of the page, trivia. Canada Jack (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's still not original research. What it would be is a compilation of an "unofficial" list based on best available data, fully cited. I'm willing to bet that living national longevity recordholders is not based on any official list either; that in itself doesn't make it OR or any other form of scholarly misdeed. That list is a well-researched, fully cited compilation of entries.

The field's focus on 110-year-olds does not make it unacceptable for us to maintain a "top 10 known men" list. If need be, we can note the limitations of such a list compared to the "official" ones -- there might be more individuals overlooked, or perhaps "death" updates would come in less often. But I'm pretty sure we could still maintain such a list in a responsible, scholarly, Wikipedia-rules-compliant manner. So what am I overlooking here?--Father Goose (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Henny van Andel"

Isn't this a bit too casual in reference to Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper? It appears in the table for the list of national longevity recordholders. Brendanology (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Betsy Baker

[4] It says that Baker held her title beginning on November 20, 1948 and lasting until her death, making her age when she held the title 106 – 113 instead of ? – 113. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanology (talk • contribs) 12:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oldest living people since 1955

I have an issue with the layout of the table, and all the other tables for local records as well. Seeing as the longevity recordholders for 1899 are two people tied for the title (both born on 1 Jan 1899), imagine if there were two people contending for oldest living person in the future, and one of them dies but the other continues to live? How will the "Title Held From/To" dates be logged? How will it be presented on the table? YES, I know this is extremely unlikely, but we have to consider the possibility. After all, Bernice Madigan, Ruth Anderson and Elsie Ward were all born on 24 July 1899. Brendanology (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that one of those people may be declared "oldest" if and when, if time of day of birth can be determined. Otherwise, it might simply be a joint title, then a single title-holder. Don't foresee a real problem here at all. Canada Jack (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If Tomoji Tanabe had died a year earlier, we would have had this very situation. Both George Francis and Henry Allingham were born on June 6 1896, and would have been technically tied for the title of "oldest man in the world." Allingham probably would have been given the title since June 6 came earlier in England than in California (but I'm not sure of either man's birthplace). Sadly, Francis died before this could be an issue, and when Tanabe died, Allingham held the undisputed title by himself.

96.13.40.120 (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)BParsons

If the time of day was known for these two, one might have been declared oldest man. Still don't see an issue even if a joint title of oldest man was declared. We could simply say "held joint title" for x days, then sole title for y days, for a total of x+y days. So, a joint listing, followed by a solo listing, with "title held" for both. Canada Jack (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood. I thought you were commenting on the unlikeliness of two joint title holders. I agree with you that this would actually be no problem. I had hoped that both Francis and Allingham would live long enough to both hold the title. If nothing else, it would have made a good "Ripley's Believe it or Not" item.

216.134.15.239 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)BParsons

That's a good suggestion, Canada Jack. I think it'd be too nitpicky to try and find the time of birth of each of the tied titleholders, so for the sake of presentation your suggestion is definitely better. Brendan_ology 12:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Lucas

Why can't we put Stanley Lucas (turned 110 on January 15) on the list of verified male supercentenarians? He is listed as 1 year old in the 1901 British census. It just seems odd to me that he is not here. 98.234.188.71 (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

maybe because of the recency... he is listed at List of living supercentenarians as "unverified" (tied for #54 on the list as of this writing) - I'm thinking the issue is not that he is 110 or not, but is he "verified" yet?Cander0000 (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We go by cases as confirmed by GRG and other gerontology authorities. The census data, on its own, will not normally be enough, as there are other documents needed to establish that the person who claimed to have turned 110 is the same person in the census. Canada Jack (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if Lucas does get added, we'll finally have a third male on the list. I've been looking forward to that. Brendanology^TalK 11:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Chinese supercentenarians

Why is it that there are little, if any, fully verified Chinese supercentenarians? Seems rather strange to me. China has 3 billion people, isn't there a single 110-year-old or above? VERIFIED Chinese supercentenarians, I repeat. Brendan_ology 13:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, it's nowhere near 3 billion, it's more like 1.3. But I take your basic point; it is odd.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Life expectancy is lower, records are sparse. Quantity on its own says nothing. China probably has about the same number of supercentenarians as France or the UK (going by estimates on the number of centenarians and that life expectancy at those ages in China compared to France/UK would be lower). Some claimants are known about, but without documentation being provided they won't be officially validated. There's a difficult language barrier and organisations that verify supercentenarians lack correspondents in certain parts of the world. Given China is such a large and diverse country, dozens of correspondents would probably be needed. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

110years, oldest Polish man.

http://www.prezydent.pl/aktualnosci/wypowiedzi-prezydenta/listy/art,673,list-z-okazji-110-urodzin-jozefa-kowalskiego.html

CONFIRMED by polish gouvernment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.86.48 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, ironically, governments are not a reliable source for longevity claims. There are currently several very ancient people alive, according to "government records" around the world. Only sources like the Gerentology Research Group or Guiness Book of World Records are accepted on this site. 96.13.62.231 (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Flash Prescott

We see the government of Cuba promoting questionable claims, for example. However, for the Polish man, if there are war records and other documents then the case can be submitted to Guinness World Records or the GRG.Ryoung122 06:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree he is a confirmed WW1 era veteran . This was proved 3 years ago when he was placed on the verified list. Why he is not on the 110 year old man list after being verified 3 years ago is baffling. The only way he would be verified a WWI era vet is that he had discharge papers with his name and birth date on them. Thus proving he is 110 years old and a verified veteran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Being placed on a Wikipedia list is NOT proof of verification. Wikipedia itself says that it cannot be quoted as its own source. However, if the man were on a Polish government list AND that verified him as a veteran...that still doesn't prove he is the age claimed. He could be 109 and still be a veteran.Ryoung122 05:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Juana Bautista

The Cuban government confirmed that Juana Bautista celebrated her 125th birthday on February 2nd, 2010. Guinness hasn't yet investigated the case. Is Guinness seen as the ultimate authority of all records or is the Cuban government good enough? Should she at least be noted as "unconfirmed?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.132.168 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The Soviet Government once "confirmed" a man to have lived over 160 years. On the list of most trustworthy sources, political governments don't even make the top 25. Unless someone can come up with some phenomenal proof of this age, Guinness will not waste its time. But I'm willing to bet that if you check her children, you will find that she "gave birth" to some of them well past 50 or 60 years old, as is usually the case. Then, we have to wonder why the Cuban government did not make notice of her at 110, 115, or 120. Those are all pretty phenomental milestones. I predict that before the year is out, some other government will suddenly "discover" another senior citizen who is 120-130 years old, and still cultivates his/her own garden or walks to the market every day. The US once had a lot of alleged 120-130 year old people, but after groups such as the GRG suddenly started following supercentanarians, the number strangely diminished. This is probably a woman using her mother's (or grandmother's) birth certificate or other data. If somehow she can be confirmed, I will be the first one to eat crow on this, and I will do it gladly. I would love to see someone break Ms. Calment's record. 96.13.90.237 (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Flash Prescott

I would like to point out that Guinness is seen as the "international standard," even by Cuba. Re-check the article; it mentions the claim has not been verified by Guinness. Also, Time Magazine in 1997 named Guinness "the official arbiter of longevity." By the way, I disagree that Guinness hasn't investigated the case. Too often, people ASSUME things that are not true. The U.S. Supreme Court often declines to review a case; that is in itself a decision. HINT.Ryoung122 05:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No human has lived to a confirmed 123 birthday and this is 2 years past that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

verified/disputed

There is a list for the oldest verified claims, and a smaller list of disputed claims. However, out of the ten "verified" claims, three are disputed. Can anyone explain this?Mk5384 (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is to cover the pure fraud case of Shigechiyo Izumi and other suspicious cases. Shigechiyo was only 105 years old at his death. For the Japanese government to save face over the lie of his birthdate and protect his family This fraud was never pulled from the records. The true fact is no man has ever reached a 116 birthdate. This fraud claimed 5 years more than the true record holder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not correct. The reason is that there are several cases that were accepted as "verified" by Guinness World Records and/or other authorities, such as Shigechiyo Izumi, whose validation was later called into question. It is the policy of science to accept a claim as verified, once accepted, unless published reports contrary to the claim have been made, at which point a decision to retract may be made. For example, the Pierre Joubert claim to age 113 was "verified" in 1878 but not discredited until 1990...see for example

1. http://www.britannica.com/facts/5/526796/Pierre-Joubert-as-discussed-in-life-span (this case was even in the Britannica!)

2. http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/04.htm

Just as in track and field, official records stay on the books until there is consensus to withdraw, at which time a record may be withdrawn (for example, Marion Jones had to return her gold Olympic medals).

At this point, the material published against the Izumi case has amounted to little more than a "leak" to the Japanese news in 1987. If/when Guinness decides to withdraw recognition, this case may be removed.

Wikipedia, it should be noted, is following a pluralistic policy by first including Izumi (favoring one point of view) and then offering addenda lists of persons that would be included if disputed cases weren't (favoring a second point of view). Using a main list/addenda list gives both points of view, and therefore are in accord with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.Ryoung122 05:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Longest living POLISH people

Place	Name, Surname	Age	Date of birth	Province
1	Marianna Ostrowska	112	5 sierpnia 1897	podlaskie
2	Józef Kowalski	110	2 lutego 1900	lubuskie
3	Apolonia Lisowska	110	18 lutego 1900	mazowieckie
4	Julianna Szewczyk	109	1 czerwca 1900	mazowieckie
5	Julianna Garbacz	109	czerwiec 1900	świętokrzyskie
6	Jadwiga Wrzos	109	1 listopada 1900	mazowieckie
7	Łucja Sobolewska	108	8 maja 1901	zachodniopomorskie
8	Helena Kucharska	108	21 października 1901	kujawsko-pomorskie
9	Konstanty Jung	108	1 listopada 1901	lubelskie
10	Bolesław Krugło	108	22 stycznia 1902	wielkopolskie
11	Marianna Misiewicz	108	26 stycznia 1902	podlaskie
12	Marta Chylewska	107	8 października 1902	pomorskie
13	Marianna Szewczyk	107	7 grudnia 1902	wielkopolskie
14	Józefa Stanisława Szyda	107	11 marca 1903	łódzkie
15	Marianna Jaroś	107	21 marca 1903	małopolskie
16	Marianna Mróz	106	18 września 1903	wielkopolskie
17	Aleksandra Dranka	106	3 października 1903	podkarpackie
18	Franciszka Rogowska	106	14 października 1903	pomorskie

Erm, English, please. Brendanology^ContriB 11:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Michalina Wasilewska , Warsaw 21.12.1898 - Warsaw 03.01.2010, at the age 111

Jadwiga Wrzos - last information 07-11-2008

Konstanty Jung - last information 03-11-2008

Julianna Garbacz - last information 18-04-2008

other information from 09. to 12. 2009 and to 02.2010

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najstarsi_ludzie

Please help us. We are from Poland we have unofficial very big database, not published. for more information , please contakt : http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Wolfgang/brudnopis

or better

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskusja:Najstarsi_ludzie

That's not a real database, that's a WIKIPEDIA page...with no standards. I see questionable longevity claims (116 in 1888?) on there.Ryoung122 00:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And what source says that Michalina Wasilewska died? Is it original research because I cant find anything on the web. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What about this woman...

What about:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_oldest_american

64.60.100.194 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Kim

She was on the top-ten living list, but now she's not.Ryoung122 20:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Maria Tomson

I've seen her page, and it's clear that she is firmly UNverified. Yet I have noticed that she has replaced Ellen Dart, Elizabeth Kensley, Auguste Pahl and Hannah Smith as the oldest living person between the dates of these four people. Can anyone clear this up? Brendanology^ContriB 13:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Large changes by Tim198

While I have no problem with the new style, in fact I like that format better personally, I feel that the large number of changes introduced in Tim198's three edits require a consensus to be formed, as many of them are potentially problematic. For example:

1. The lead, in addition to being simplified, removes the Guinness Book of World Records as a potential source for validate claims, leaving only the GRG, which should not be the only acceptable source for the information on this page.
2. The edits also remove the citation needed templates from facts that, well, need citations, as well as removing the automatic age update templates, which is, at the very least, an unnecessary removal in my mind.
3. Moses Hardy has been removed completely from the lists without any discussion or explanation.
4. The "unreferenced section" templates have been removed as well.

I have therefore reverted the changes pending consensus and discussion. I have no objection to the style, however, so if anyone wants to revert me, but restore the issues above to their original state, then feel free. Canadian Paul 21:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Paul,

regarding point 1, I don't see any need to list Guiness World Records as a source because they themselves don't validate cases any longer (they just use GRG information)

COMMENT: YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT FOR A FACT. Every year Guinness World Records receives cases, some of which are NOT from the GRG. GWR has been the "established authority" in the Western press since 1955. When stories in places like China mention the world's oldest person, they speak of the "GUINNESS" title, not the "GRG" title.Ryoung122 22:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

While I'm sure that's true. I still think it's best to remove mention of Guinness. The main goal of the intro paragraph is to cite a few examples of agencies that deal in longevity research. We don't need to include them all. From what I've seen Guinness itself isn't cited that often in any wikpedia articles under the longevity template. If we want to add another agency we should add Louis Epstein's Oldest Human beings page which has been cited numerous times.Tim198 (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

regarding point 2 I only removed one of those templates and I do have a citation regarding Calment being the most thoroughly documented case but I forgot to add it. See http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest184.html

On point 3 I asked for consensus on changing Hardy's birthdate on the talkpage of List of the verified oldest people. I waited a week but got no response so I made the changes anyway. (Although I see that Derby has recently made a post against it) Nonetheless, for the moment, this page should go along with the other pages on Wikipedia and consider Hardy to be 112 years old (and thus not listed as one of the ten oldest men)

regarding point 4 I deleted those by accident and should reinstate themTim198 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I also don't like that some of your tables are "fine print" versions, difficult for some people to read.Ryoung122 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it somewhat hard to believe that anyone is having problems reading the smaller tables. I only decreased the font size by 1 point. I did this to condense the tables a bit and help decrease the page length. I've recieved compliments regarding the new styling changes (such as highlighting disputed cases) and have decided to change all the tables to the new style. I should note that many other foreign language versions of wikpedia (such as the italian version) use the slightly smaller font sizes.Tim198 (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding point 3, you should have asked for consensus on the Moses Hardy talk page (I would have seen it there right away, it's on my watchlist), which is the proper place to discuss the article. That's my only comment for the moment. Canadian Paul 22:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I really wasn't sure exactly where to put the discussion since it involved numerous articles.

Tim198 (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to the revert CP's edit. I will correct points 2 and 4. Moses Hardy will remain off the page FOR THE MOMENT in order to be consistent with other pages. Since it seems his age is still up for debate, he can be re-added IF other members decide that's what's best.Tim198 (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still having problems understanding why everyone who edits this article feels the need to "shorten" the text lead-in. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are not just collections of lists. Many people doing research need text and elaboration. I'm having problems seeing how this latest revision was an improvement, and why one "disputed" claim was completely removed while all the others were merely highlighted in brown.216.134.19.58 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Flash Prescott

I have to say I agree with the IP address, particularly on the matter of shortening the lead, as the changes are somewhat anathema to WP:LEAD. Anyhow, I think that you may misunderstand how consensus works Tim198. It is not "I'm going to make this edit and it's going to stay that way until enough people disagree with me". It is "I made this edit, I got reverted, now I'm going to see if enough people agree with me to add it back in." See this flowchart. Furthermore, the only reason that this page was inconsistent in the first place was because you unilaterally removed him from all the other pages ([5], [6], [7], [8]), after posting a discussion not on his own page, then claimed that "I waited a week but got no response so I made the changes anyway." Reinserting him right now would be appropriate as, per that discussion which everyone has just become aware of, there is obviously significant opposition to this move. For the sake of civility, however, I can compromise on leaving things as they are (it will not be difficult to readd him whenever I think) for now, and carry on the discussion IF we leave (or rather, restore) the uncertainty about his age that was removed by User:NickOrnstein to the actual Moses Hardy article for the time being. Does that sound fair? Canadian Paul 02:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to say that I have a problem with the very small font sizes being used by Tim198. It makes things hard for some people to read, and I don't see an advantage to it. Also, I think, if anything, the lead needs to be expanded, not trimmed. This article was originally an ARTICLE, not just a bunch of lists. Some people think completely in terms of mathematics, but not everyone does. Having text helps those people whose brain might appreciate a different format.Ryoung122 04:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ryoung122. I don't like the change in font size either, and the lead was better before. I think reverting to the previous version was the correct decision.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the smaller font sizes make it difficult for some people to read. I only reduced the font size by 1 point. It's the same size as, if not slightly bigger than the standard text on the rest of the page.

Also, some people need the check their facts, I DID NOT shorten the lead (I only removed the Guinness mention). The lead was shortened months ago and not by me. If you want to discuss this issue do so in a different section as it doesn't relate to my changes.

If you were the one who changed it, then it is YOUR change. You were the one who noted first that the lead was being "simplified." I propose that we give the more literate people who come to this side some additional complete sentences, with subjects and verbs and everything. 98.134.27.26 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Flash Prescott

It's quite clear that you yourself AREN'T one of the more literate people on this site. If you were, you'd have read that it was Canadian Paul, not me, that brought up the issue of the page being simplified first. Secondly, I DID NOT SHORTEN THE LEAD!!!! IT WAS SHORTENED MONTHS AGO BY ANOTHER MEMBER, NOT ME. Before making any accusations towards me, you should first go back to 1st grade and learn basic reading skills since you clearly don't have any right now.Tim198 (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I see now that I misread the one who said that they had been simplified and I acknowledge that; however, it was further shortened, and it was a non-concensus decision to attempt to remove mention of Guiness. And I recommend that everyone look at the majority of Wikipedia entries and compare them to our current paucity of written information. The lists are great, and serve a purpose, but most people who come here have never seen this site, and don't really know the basis for the lists. There are many interesting observations that could be added; one example would be the length of time that two men were tied, for several months, as second oldest man in the world. Many of us who have followed this site for years, in fact, check it daily to keep up with these supercentenarians we have gotten to know through this page because of the careful research of others, live in dread of one day opening the page and seeing one person's "vision" for this page remove valuable info we were tracking. And the bottom line is, we need more written text to introduce this article. 216.134.19.58 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Flash Prescott

I fully acknowledge that there was no consensus regarding the Guinness issue and I've reinstated the mention until some consensus is reached. (and cleary we have no consensus on that issue right now). The main problem I have here is that the issue of the possible expansion of the lead paragraph is being discussed in this section. If you want to discuss the issue further I recommend you create a new section on this page specifically devoted that issue. You'll probably get a better discussion going that way. Also, I DID NOT shorten the article further. The only thing I did was remove the Guinness mention and change a few minor words around (nothing that affects actual content). Lastly, for the record, I actually AGREE WITH YOU on your point that more content should be added to the lead.Tim198 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated Moses Hardy since these seems to be the consensus, Even though I strongly disagree with having him on there.Tim198 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the national list being changed to place of birth. Several of the records make no sense anymore. Ireland as an independent country did not exist in 1820. Lithuania was part of the Russian Empire. Several countries were past of Austria-Hungary. Rosa Rein is down as being Polish when she was never Polish at all, she was German. It's far less complicated to list people by their country of death. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if would be far easier to list the records by country of death. However, I don't believe we can do that. AFAIK the GRG is the only agency that actually keeps these types of records and they base these records on place of birth. (I know this because I specifically asked Robert Young about this). If we change it to country of death then it would have to be considered original research as our source doesn't organize the all time recordholders in that way.Tim198 (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not what original research is. Original research is using unsourced information, or synthesising something new. It's not using sourced information to compile a different table. We already do that with pages such as the list of the verified oldest people - using information about the oldest people who have died, and the oldest living people. We're not synthesising anything new, we're just re-ordering it. And for the record, the GRG doesn't have a list of oldest people by place of birth. The GRG doesn't organise national recordholders in any way. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't making a list of so-called "national record-holders" when no such list exists lives elsewhere constitute original research? For example, is Plunkett considered by the Irish to be their record-holder? How about Izumi? Do the Japanese consider him to be the record-holder or, say, Ikai? Further, who are we to declare, given the complexities of various nations, shifting borders or what have you, that person x is a "national record-holder"? Just asking these questions to suggest we shouldn't be compiling a list if one has not been compiled elsewhere as eligibility requirements aren't easily standardized and these disputes will continue ad infinitum. Canada Jack (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tim198 that we should keep the "national longevity recordholders" the way it is. This page serves as a general overview; those looking for "more information" can click on the main-article link.

Listing by place of death can be problematic; a person may not be a resident of the place they died at. More than that, however, listing by place-of-death introduces a hypothetical incentivization: one could move simply to "break the record." Where someone is born, however, is not influenced by such thoughts.

Also, Guinness World Records listed Plunkett as the Irish recordholder. Let's not get too technical here. I think everyone understands that, even if "nation" is an "imagined community," what is generally meant by "Ireland" or "Australia" for that matter.Ryoung122 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter, at least from my point of view, on the "technicality" of what is meant by "Ireland" or what have you, it's how we compile such a list without a list extant. I know Guinness used to list by national records and if they still do so, then we have an arbiter. If not, then this is not an easy question to answer. There could be a dozen ways to compile a so-called "national" list. Canada Jack (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Verified oldest woman currently living (over 130 years) in Uzbekistan

I couldn't edit the main site about "oldest people ever", so here is the youtube video [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.228.209.180 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This person isn't "verified" as defined by this page - by an international organization specializing in gerontology. Besides, Tuti Yusupova, who has her own page here and appears on the Longevity claims page, isn't even the oldest living claimant on the planet. Maria Olívia da Silva is the oldest with a (single) claimed date of birth, Watfa al-Ghanem claims to have been born in the year 1880, Ghaini Jamkar claims to have been born in 1873. Halim Solmaz has claimed to have been born 1 July 1874, but also has claimed an 1884 date. All this underlines why these claims have to be verified by organizations specializing in gerontology before appearing on this page. Canada Jack (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Carrie White

Hi! Shouldn't Carrie White have a brown background color? I think her case is still disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.211.5 (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Done. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

New "world's oldest person" for 1965

Greetings,

Recent research is turning up new "world's oldest person" titleholders for the past. Expect 'new' cases by June for the 1960s.Ryoung122 07:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Canada Jack (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mamerong, 8 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} A country of death (USA) is listed for Walter Breuning, but he is still living, according to the rest of the table.

Mamerong (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Tim Pierce (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

National longevity recordholders

National longevity recordholders should be based on the countries of death/last residence, not of birth, because in those countries they were/are doyens. In fact the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_longevity_recordholders confirms this thesis.--Pascar (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

But the very first claimants, for Algeria, both died in other countries! Canada Jack (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it means they were the oldest people in the other countries, not in Algeria. And Rosa Rein was the oldest person (the national longevity recordholder) in Switzerland.--Pascar (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pascal, the page you says "confirms this thesis" lists, as its first two claimants, the record-holders for Algeria, neither of whom died in said country. Your thesis is therefore not confirmed. Canada Jack (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I read: "These records are based on Country of birth." Then I read that Christian Mortensen (dead in the U.S.) was national longevity recordholder in Denmark, Rosa Rein (dead in Switzerland) in Poland, Soledad Mexia (living in the U.S) in Mexico, Anne Primout (dead in France) in Algeria, Julia Dougherty (dead in the U.S.) in Peru etc. National longevity recordholders are a title for their country of last residence, not of birth, so we should correct. In the page I said for example I read "==Denmark==Anne Matthiesen holds the Danish record at 111 years, 114 days (November 26, 1884–March 19, 1996). And it is right! --Pascar (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT so simple, it is NOT "so right." What if someone moved several times? Had more than one residence? Died while on vacation? The nation they were born in didn't exist when they were born, but does now? What if they lived part of their life in one country and part in another?

I much prefer to do "records by birth." You are only born once. Of course, a lot of this nationalistic division of the world is, in itself, a bit simplistic and overstated. We all live on the same planet, and there's no evidence that we can genetically define who belongs to what "nation." Nationality is even more confused than race.

That said, Wikipedia is supposed to follow "outside sources."Ryoung122 07:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should consider people just in their centenarian age, so in the country of last part of their life. For example Rosa Rein was doyenne of Switzerland. She lived many years in current Poland, then in Brazil and in Italy but she expressed her record just in/for Switzerland, because she was the oldest living person in that country. Then the criterion of "country of birth" is in contrast with the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_longevity_recordholders that is reported under the title: National longevity recordholders Main article: National longevity recordholders. So this contradiction must be corrected anyway.--Pascar (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. First off, the "main article" (National Longevity Recordholders) is necessarily longer, therefore it includes multiple (pluralistic) points of view, caveats, etc. This section here is just a summary, without those details.

The outside sources use "place of birth" first, so that should be followed here in this article. Also, the most important point to me: someone could "move" just to set a record, but not if we go by "place of birth."Ryoung122 18:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If we make the list by birth country then we have problems with the fact that so many countries no longer exist. Place of death is how the media tends to report. I agree with Pascar that it should be by place of death (as it was for a long time until edits were made without discussion) SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is all right. Then we are talking about "national records", that are "records of nations" (not "of nationalities"), and an emigrant can be a record of his birth country no more, because he is out of it, it'd be a non-sense.--Pascar (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What about Katarina Marinič of Slovenia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.132.57 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Unverified - Oldest Person Ever?

Apparently a census in Indonesia today found an 157 year old woman who is currently living. Here is the link to the News.com.au coverage of it: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/indonesian-census-discovers-157-year-old-woman/story-e6frfku0-1225876664378 Pacemanscoop (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

See longevity myths. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If this were for real, she could have been "found" forty years ago and still have been, at that time, the "oldest person ever." One hundred twenty years old would have been amazing enough, and someone in 1973 would have "found" her then, I'm sure. This is a misprint or a misrepresentation, at the best, and fraud, at the worst.--Flash Prescott (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is a myth...something believed to be true that's not. It's like religious belief or belief in aliens, bigfoot, or the Loch Ness monster. Many people are simply not rational and will believe anything.Ryoung122 05:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Don't know enough about this, but saw it and thought i'd contribute.Pacemanscoop (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing. I personally would love for us to find some people upwards of 120, and though improbable, it's not impossible. I think most people reacted to the very advanced age. But there's always a chance to find some genuine candidate for the list. I hope to see Mme. Calment's record broken some day.--Flash Prescott (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This story has been covered by many reputable sources (though it has not been verified).

• FoxNews
• Geek.com
• ABC News Australia
• [10]
• Yahoo! News

-76.30.146.194 (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read THIS section here:

"There's no authentic data to prove her age"

Indonesia is NOT a nation known for a well-educated populace. If you check out photos of this woman, she appears to be in her 80s. The claim that her adopted daughter is 108 is also not credible.Ryoung122 00:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Verified oldest men currently living (over 110 years)

Okay, I've had a think about this. Is there really a need to put down the gender column for this list? How many people on this list have been a gender other than male, after all? Brendanology^ContriB 04:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right about this, and have hoped someone would take you up on it. If I had more experience in major edits, I would try it, but I just do grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and sometimes I fix vandalism. But you are right that having a "gender" column is rather redundant. I hope someone comes to the rescue on this.

216.134.19.58 (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Flash Prescott

The list of Ww1_veterans suggests that there is a 110 year old male alive in Poland (Jozef Kowalski). This is backed by the person's article on the English Wikipedia Józef_Kowalski and the citations from polish media and the presidential web site. From my point of view, this is pretty much level with the standards set by the other entries in the top 10 list. Is there any reason why he should be excluded? - Christian K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.45.150.17 (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

His age has not been officially validated even if his army service just after WWI has been. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Li Ching-Yuen

Alleged reports say 250, which can be verified by his 23 wives and 11 generations of children, but even if born in 1736 as claimed, he would still top this whole list. Another example of wikipedia censorship? Is this website viewable in china? And i could almost swear i saw fox news as a reputable source for this article, but that would just be insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.241.254 (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This page is for verified claims, by "verified" we mean by organizations which specialize in longevity claims. Li is found on the longevity myths page, and has his own page here. As for the "censorship" charge, if we included these unverified claims, Mr. Li would be well down the list. Canada Jack (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mary McKinney

Greetings,

The source of Louis Epstein's "by some reports born 1875?" for Mary McKinney was the 1880 census, which listed her as "five" years old. Moreover, the proof of birth from 1873 was a Catholic baptismal entry located in the Sacramento diocese of the Roman Catholic church that records her as born in 1873. Using the principle of stratigraphy (if we threw a rock in a pond, the initial impact wave most-closely approximates reality, not the echoes), the oldest document was laid down first and therefore takes precedence. Moreover, it would not be possible for Mary to be born in 1875 unless there were two children of the same name...all this would involve more research. The bottom line is that Mary McKinney's age was accepted by Guinness and the evidence for 1873 is stronger than for 1875; it fact it invalidates it. Louis, however, likes to be difficult.Ryoung122 00:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.114.226.186, 12 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please consider adding the name of Henry Francisco (1686-1820) who lived to the remarkable age of 134 to this page even if his date of birth cannot be verified. There are many internet accounts of his life but for just one example please see; <http://www.carlbeck.com/old_henry.htm>

Thank you,

Ross Pake

67.114.226.186 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the person is listed in the article Longevity myths, and the reference given there is a bit confusing;

I've tried to find some reliable sources; there is this pic in Ripley's Believe It or Not!, and some other mentions, but...well, if he really did live to be over 130, you'd expect some more definitive proof. I did more digging, but it was bordering on original research, therefore... if you can find appropriate reliable sources to confirm it, please reinstate the request; the reference you gave does not look like a reliable source, and I'm concerned that this might be a bit of a myth.  Chzz  ►  22:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Hava Rexha from Albania

Someone might want to consider this entry: Hava Rexha, the oldest woman in the world. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Appears that she passed in 2003, which would typically preclude her candidacy for the title of oldest woman in the world. Perhaps in the historical records as oldest at that time? Cander0000 (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jerrysmith23, 25 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} ...removed text available here

Jerrysmith23 (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made your account confirmed so you can make the edit yourself. If it is controversial you should ask for opinions on the talk page first.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)