Talk:Oldest people

There Should be an Unverified Section

This could include citations of claims by governments. For instance in China there is a ghovernmental claim of a man who lived beyond 200.

205.240.11.90 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

See longevity claims and longevity myths articles.Ryoung122 13:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Geographic sub-regions

As considerable progress has been made in tidying up this article can we revisit the use of sub-regions? In the tables for oldest living people and oldest living men the last column is labelled "Country". So is it really necessary to have the State, region, prefecture etc, etc, etc as well? The tables of top ten living also use a mix of sub-categories below country level. If there is no consistency for these would it not be better to remove them altogether? And exactly how does this information improve the quality of the article in any case? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like them. I think they're especially relevant for cases from larger countries like the USA, or in the UK where the constituent countries have their individuality. I also like the way it is done on this page by actually writing it out, rather than abbreviating the state/county/country to 2 or 3 letters. SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The great page clean-up of 2008

So... what happened? The page seems more cluttered now, if anything... Canada Jack (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My life has gotten very busy. I still edit Wikipedia just not everyday like I used to. This page was really messed up today when I checked it!! I used rollback. I think it was in good faith but I couldn't figure out what the anon was trying to do. I don't think it was vandalism. Just a new user. Regards. --Npnunda (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Junk keeps getting thrown back in, making most of the clean up somewhat futile. The sections at the bottom have been unreferenced since September 2008, however, and they should be removed if there's still no sourcing by the end of the year. I think three months is more than a "reasonable amount of time" per WP:CITE. Cheers, CP 19:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The last sections at the bottom should be properly merged into extreme longevity tracking and a one-sentence note should be placed at the top of this article redirecting readers interested in the "behind the scenes" work to that article. This article should properly focus on the results...sort of like the difference between an article on the Academy Awards (results-based focus) and an article on the director or studio who makes the movies.Ryoung122 23:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The lists of men/women/overall "titleholders" also needs cleaning up. There must be a more concise listing than 3 seperate tables. Perhaps one each for men and women with identification of the overall oldest by highlighting, bolding or an asterisk. Another option would be to create a seperate page with the lists of men and women and just have the overall oldest listed here. Also the age at death on these lists crept in during the year; I am not sure that this is necessary as the tables are concerned with identifying who was the oldest and when, their actual age being incidental and in most cases found elsewhere where the age is subject of notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: with the exception of the Izumi period, there really isn't much value to having a separate "oldest woman" table: in the past 22 years, a man has held the distinction for just 44 days, of which the only person left off is Julie Winnifred Bertrand. That could be summed up in a simple footnote.

Another thing to consider is that 90% of supercentenarians are female. Do we report the first male finisher of a marathon as the "male winner" if, unexpectedly, a woman finishes first? How about the male recordholder while Gertrude Ederle held the record for the fastest crossing of the English channel? What is notable about finishing behind someone whom you had a 9-1 advantage over? So I don't see a need for an "oldest woman" table separate from the "oldest person" and "oldest man" list. Just my opinion.Ryoung122 23:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Robert, I've brought this up before and, being an experienced marathoner myself (I've run Boston five times), I can assure you that if a woman beat all men, she, as always, would be considered the top female runner and the first man, as always, would be considered the top male runner. So, yes, emphatically, Robert Kipkoech Cheruiyot was the winner of the Men's Open event of the Boston Marathon this year and the two previous years and was reported as such! In the case of marathons, it is generally assumed that the first to cross the finish line (at least on foot) will be a man, while in the case of gerontology, it is assumed that, oh, say 90 per cent of the time, the oldest person will be a woman. Which is why I argued for the Top 10 living women and top ten living men. Instead of oldest person and oldest man. (and if we turn the argument upside down, why are we more interested in the 10th-oldest man and not the 10th-oldest woman alive when only one living man is older than that unknown (on this page) 10th oldest women? Makes little sense to me. And while we are not likely to see a woman win a major marathon in the near future, some women have placed relatively high in the over-all standings, yet are ranked as women finishers and the guy who may be beat for 10th place is still ranked 10th for men. Canada Jack (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(Without wishing to extend the analogy between running and gerontology too far!!)) As far as I am aware the majority of (internet) results for road races of mixed genders will include all runners in finish order with identifying information such as gender, age(/grade) and gun and/or chip time. These results can then be filtered by age and gender (and in some cases elligibility) and it is these results which are published in newspapers as e.g. top 10 men and women although I have also seen top 10 overall including women and a seperate women only list. I don't think I have ever seen overall/men/women lists (except where championships are involved within open races). The point is how much information should be used for a summary and how much detail should be made available elsewhere? DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference here is that in a marathon, it's probably more like 1/1000 for a woman to come first (at least in a professional race), whereas here it's more like 1/10. I did try and come up with a table that would show the top 10 men, women, and people altogether in one table.SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I threw that one out again, as I feel we should have some sexually segregated lists as there is a clear disparity between sexes (as there is in the field of running) and this means having separate (and not "over-all" lists) makes some sense. However, and I am sure Robert will agree with this, this is not how the sources actually deal with the information and we therefore should not be so quick to compile our own lists.

But, folks, it's time to eliminate a lot of the lists on this page. That I think we can agree on. Take off the all those progressive lists of men/women title holders. Create a new page if some here think we really need them. Just leave the oldest person one. At least start there. Then we can get into the more nitty-gritty stuff that Robert mentioned. Canada Jack (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think this page really needs a major cleanup. However, it could be trimmed, especially in areas of overlap. For example, if there is an article that leads to the 100 oldest persons ever, the summary on this page could be just top 10 or 15 (instead of 25). Let's prune, but not over-prune. The "oldest person" list is the most important list and should stay. Let's start with, as I mentioned, the extraneous material at the bottom of the page belongs in extreme longevity tracking, if at all.

Finally, there is too much suggestion and not enough action; let's have someone do something. I really shouldn't be making these edits due to the potential COI.Ryoung122 20:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then let's say this - Omit the table Chronology of oldest living men (since 1961); Chronology of oldest living women (since 1955); and make The 25 verified oldest people ever (115+) list a ten-deep list, to be consistent with the other lists and given we have a link to a 100-deep list. If there are no heated objections, I'll do this tomorrow. Canada Jack (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

NO! Don't start with the most-controversial moves first. I see the need to keep the "oldest man" table, as it's been mentioned that men have only a 1 in 10 chance of being on the "oldest person" list. The "oldest man" table is the second-most-important table on this page.Ryoung122 08:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support removing the oldest women table, but I think the oldest men table should stay: Nearly everyone represented on this table is not represented on the oldest people table. I would also support truncating the oldest people ever list from 25 to 10 people. Most of the oldest women table is identical to the first and the main problem I have with this page is repetition of information on different tables. I'd appreciate it if people could comment on the tables I did, particularly on the emigrant table as I'd like to know if it's clear or not. I think the first two solve the problem of repeating information, but appreciate they will need a bit more updating via the overall rank. SiameseTurtle (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmn...quite interesting presentation. Personally I like the national recordholders/immigrant tables the way they are now. The point there is the diversity of nations, not "oldest-oldest." So, I don't like the new version as much.

I removed the comment about the oldest human organ (a transplanted cornea) as it seemed irrelevant. Why not start with removing or tranferring the last two sections first?Ryoung122 12:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay... so let's shorten the "25 oldest" to "10 oldest," to be consistent with the other lists on the page. And let's omit the oldest women list. I know I suggested this was needed in the past, but it makes the page unwieldy and the consensus seems to be to omit it but leave the oldest men list. If there are no objections, I will do this myself tomorrow. Canada Jack (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sort of ambivalent on the "oldest woman" list. However I think once the last three sections are deleted or merged to extreme longevity tracking that this page will be pared down sufficiently.Ryoung122 05:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and deleted the oldest women's list, shortened the 25 oldest to be 10 oldest, and out in addendums for the 10 oldest people/men lists. Not sure the latter is needed, but when we have in both charts disputed cases we should have a 10-deep list of claims with no disputes. Perhaps we should do the same for the 100-deep lists, as per a suggestion by robert? Canada Jack (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the notes/references should be made a bit clearer. Firstly, if possible, we should try to have one note per disputed case to explain the nature of the dispute. However, I don't know the reasoning behind many of the disputed cases. Secondly, I think it would be a good idea to split these from the references and put them into their own section, such as how it has been done in the Monarchies in Oceania article.SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is Ma Pampo or Moloko Temo

I don't see any mention of Ma Pampo who died in the Dominica in the Caribbean at the age of 128
I also don't see Moloko Temo of South Africa anywhere and she seems to be in the news alot at age 132
Can Anyone verify this?
These women need to be recognised even if their ages cannot be verified because of lack of documentation at the time.--JDab15 (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The person is question is an unvalidated claim. This page is for validated claims. There is a page for her here and mention of her as well on the longevity myths page. As Guinness often stated, the field of longevity is perhaps the field most prone to exaggerated claims and deliberate fraud. The case mentioned here is one of the least credible ones out there. Canada Jack (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As for Moloko Temo, there is a page for her as well, and an explanation why a document issued when she was 114 does not constitute proof. The main evidence against her claim is that she would have been 54 when her first child was born. Canada Jack (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: when she "claimed" to be 114.Ryoung122 02:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

oldest person

the oldest person is 124 years old —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.173.117 (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You are on the wrong page. Go here. Canada Jack (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I Gusti Nyoman Lempad

I Gusti Nyoman Lempad age 116 at oldest, died in 1978. Could someone add him on the list?? Lhw1 (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This list is for verified people, so he does not qualify for this page. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

His documentary "Lempad of Bali" is pretty good verification. Lhw1 (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

oldest man

Oldest man in last century was Javier Pereira. He died when he was 167 years old.He was born in Colombia, South America.Colombian Goverment printed his face in a post stamp.He died in the sixties and he recomended for longevity.Newspaper El Tiempo(www.eltiempo.com)can give support,photografies and people involved in Philately of Colombia can give you stamps about this person.I have one of them in my own Philatelic Collection,190.84.15.44 (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

See longevity claims. This page is for validated claims only. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

See longevity myths. Longevity claims is for unverified claims that are within the realm of possibility. Age 167 is not in that realm.Ryoung122 00:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary of chart

I placed a summary of the chart at the bottom of it with things like the average time spent as the world's oldest person, the totals for countries, etc, but it was removed claiming that it had been decided on the talk page. I see no mention of such a discussion above, but I thought I would ring in here before replacing it to see if someone could direct me to it if I am missing it. It seems like valuable information that shouldn't be discarded. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification; I was talking about the overall world's oldest person chart. I also placed one at the bottom of the world's oldest man chart with the averages, etc., and would be happy to figure out the ones for the oldest woman as well (it is a simple matter of putting it into Excel) as long as I can be sure it won't be removed again. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well it has been about 3 days and no comments or anything, so I am going to go ahead and re-add the summaries. If they are out of place, then someone please provide a valid reason why. (or point to the previous discussion on it) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there was no discussion because no one knows what chart you are referring to. Something was plonked on the 100 oldest verified people page and was removed after discussion on the talk page there, so if this is a similar chart I suspect that it would not reach a consensus for its conclusion, as it doesn't really add anything to the page. Canada Jack (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a chart, but the summary of an already included chart. It was included in the article for a long time (over a year I think), so I was just wondering why it was removed.Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

He's referring to the summaries of which persons and countries held the oldest person "titles" most often and longest.

• For the benefit of User:Cardsplayer4life: In the discussion at the top of this page Talk:Oldest people#A New Start For This Page, started on 19 July, it was decided to remove the text you have included. See the post by Canada Jack at 17:56, 18 August. Point 3. "OMIT the bit of trivia after the table listing who held the title longest, shortest etc." None of the many users who contributed to this discussion advocated its retention. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk)

Hmm, well looking over the conversation, the only thing I can make out as discussion on that point is a response by CP saying that the #3 point was the one he disagreed with. (I could totally be missing it with all the other conversation about other stuff going on, so forgive me if so) With one person in favor of and one person against, I would hardly call that a consensus. Just for the sake of clarification, what exactly would be the problem with summarizing the chart? It was included for a long, long time in the article, and I found the information valuable. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(I thought I posted this earlier but apparently not!). Paul was referring to point 3 on his page. So there was never a disagreement to the omission of that text. No other user who has contributed to this page has shown any interest in keeping it. All the discussion so far indicates that the consensus is the exact opposite. This page still contains too much information that is of no real value top the article. This trivia is the most obvious. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that the "consensus" was in the fact that no one raised a peep when this was actually omitted when some general clean-up went ahead. (And of which more still needs to be done, btw, imho.) That is, of course, until you raised the issue. Canada Jack (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha; Consider the issue officially raised. ;) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So far, you are the only one who seems to feel this is needed, cards. Since the section had been removed months ago without any objection, and two of three people here see no need for it, your insistence on re-inserting the text (as I see you've gone ahead and done) would seem to rest on shaky ground. Canada Jack (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support removing it. It's trivia and doesn't really serve a purpose as much of the information can be seen from the table anyway. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a problem at all, it just seemed useful. Are there any specific objections to the chart summary? (obviously it is not trivia unless the entire chart is considered trivia; I mean specific objections to the actual content of the summary) I would say since it stayed in the article for over a year that there was certainly a tacit agreement that it was ok to have in there. (a year is certainly longer than a couple months if a time comparison was what was being argued, haha) Again, I just find it helpful. If there had been a discussion on removing it and an overwhelming support of such an action, I would certainly have no problem with its removal, but until then it should probably be included. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted previously attempts have been made to tidy up this page by removing unnecessary information. The consensus was then, and appears to still be now, that summaries of the charts fall into that category and are not worth including on this page. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So, I suppose that means my below suggestion would be a fair compromise, since it keeps it tidy? Cardsplayer4life (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, an alternative might be to break the summary into its different parts and include them as reference tags at the relevant parts of the chart. (of course, the overall averages and whatnot would likely still need to be placed at the top or bottom, but it could be less obtrusive, if that is what is troubling) I would be happy to do that, if it is what is needed. :) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, cards, not a single editor here besides yourself supports inclusion of this. It's a collection of trivia about the respective charts. Information, as previously noted, which can be determined by anyone wishing to know it with information on the page already there. You've had a fair chance here, you've presented your case, and the clear consensus here is to omit the summaries. So, bearing that in mind, I would say it's time to remove the sections. Canada Jack (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's cool with me; I can do the "compromise" method of breaking the trivia up into its requisite reference parts since no one has voiced any disapproval with it. I'll make the appropriate edits. Thanks for the inputs, guys, and sorry for any problems I may have caused in the short term for the article. :) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you've not been reading the comments too closely, cards. Far from "no one" voicing any disapproval, I've said this adds nothing to the page, Derby says the same, as does Siamese. IOW, everyone besides yourselves in fact voices nothing but disapproval for inclusion of the comments in question. Since the consensus is for the removal of the comments, the choice here is for either for you to do it or one of us. The rule of thumb here is to achieve consensus on a course of action, not propose a "compromise" when only one person advocates a change. Canada Jack (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you can't exactly say that when someone does not comment on something that they implicitly disagree with you, because the same would apply on both sides of the argument. (and comments made) It doesn't really matter, though, as the summaries were (obviously) removed a few days ago with my apologies, like I said, so the point the point is really mute now. As far as the references are concerned, they are 2 steps removed from any perceived consensus anyway. (In other words, I don't believe there is even a consensus to remove the trivia, but even if that were the case, then individual references on specific things are another matter all together, since they are no longer summaries but apply specifically to the parts of the chart) If you are going to remove these reference comments, then you are going to need to remove a lot more in this article. (and a large percentage of references across wikipedia for that matter) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I don't mind some inclusion of statistics, such as "average length of reign." The problem is, of course, that the results would be markedly different if we removed just a few cases (such as Izumi and Carrie White).

Another idea would be to make a graph which plotted the age of the oldest living person over time (including age at ascensison, not just age at death). I think the graph which was removed was a noble attempt which failed, however, to achieve its goal. Remember, a "picture is worth a thousand words." If a graph can be made that makes it apparent that the average age of the world's oldest person steadily increased from the 1960s to the 1990s (but has levelled off since then), that would be a positive.Ryoung122 23:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Should References be removed?

Since the trivia section question was answered, and now there is apparently a question as to what kind of reference tags should be included in the article, I am splitting this into a separate section. (basic question: Should reference tags be used for "trivia", or statements about a point which show facts, or only for references that are linked? I think the former, as the latter would require mass de-referencing to the article. Discuss.) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cards: We had the discussion. Everyone except you said this was the sort of trivia not needed on the page. What don't you get here? I've made numerous suggestions in the past that didn't get adopted - even on this page - but I suck it up and move on, or suggest something that others can agree with. But the bottom line here is I respect the consensus of the other editors. Even then, it is rare to have everyone who comments say "no" to the suggestion. And even more rare to see someone who seems to be a responsible long-time editor simply ignore the repeated requests not to include this information despite the unanimity expressed here. Which is why I removed the trivia - that was the consensus. Yet you turn around and re-inserted the information.

I again ask, with respect, for you to revert your changes as they defy the consensus already reached on this page. Canada Jack (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That is fine; I concur with most of what you said. I removed the trivia section already. If you are talking about the reference tags, then they should definitely stay. I count only about 4 of the current references that would not be classified as "trivia" as you define it, so almost all will go if you define it that broadly. If that is the route you would like to go, that is fine, but there must be consistency. (one way or the other, in other words) You can't define one reference in one way and another reference in another way. I will be happy to strip the article of all references that you would classify as "trivia" if that is what you are asking me to do, but I would suspect that there would be a large number of people that would disagree with your assessment. Just say the word, and I will do it, though, if that is what you feel is needed. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What we agreed upon was this: remove the trivia such as The longest consecutive time with the title of World's Oldest Person held was by Shigechiyo Izumi of Japan for 3384 days from November 16, 1976 to February 21, 1986. and The country with the most people on the list is the United States with 9, followed by Japan with 4, and the United Kingdom with 3.

The only person who is pretending there is an issue of whether this can live in the text of the article or in a footnote is you. The only person who is pretending that there is some arbitrary, capricious definition of "trivia" at play here is you. And the only person who is willfully ignoring the consensus thus far clearly reached, and using specious and evasive tactics to avoid that consensus, while attempting to impose text which no one else feels is needed, is you.

If you identify other items which you view as being trivial, then discuss them before you remove them. But we already have consensus to remove the above-mentioned items and the other similar notes. So I respectively request you remove those agreed-upon notes, and leave the other ones until you have some agreement here. If you are "confused" by what we are talking about, then don't edit the page. Canada Jack (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would request that you assume good faith in this discussion; we are all just trying to improve wikipedia and make it the best it can be. As far as the edits are concerned, I am not confused at all, but it seems you are, so I will again attempt to clarify. (This time with examples to see if that helps you out.) We are past the "trivia section" (paragraph at the end of the charts), so I would request that it be dropped as a reference point and only consider the point of what a reference is to keep the conversation from being muddled and to keep everything clear. (which is why I created the new section; you can discuss that in the above section if you wish, although it seems to have been decided)

Here is a statement that you obviously consider trivia not worthy of being a reference: "The longest consecutive time with the title of World's Oldest Man held was by Shigechiyo Izumi of Japan for 4,367 days from March 9, 1974 to February 21, 1986." If that is considered trivia, then it can hardly be argued that this statement is NOT trivia: "Matthew Beard is recognized by the Social Security Administration as the oldest ever American-born man." ...or this one: "May have been born in 1894 and aged 112 at the time of his death."....or any of almost all of the references. They all present statements that are facts which expound upon entries to the article. As I said, I have absolutely no problem against such statements being either included or removed as long as the policy is uniformly applied one way or the other. Feel free to pick one way and uniformly apply it to all references; I am not arguing for one policy over another. (If you would rather have one over the other, then feel free to make such a case) If there is any further clarification needed, then feel free to ask. :) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Even though you have used wiki reference markup what you have added are really still notes (ie there no external reference or link to any other wiki page). They are also, as already determined by consensus on this page, trivia which adds nothing to this page. The Hardy reference ("may have been 112") is detailed on his page and does not need to be repeated in full on this summary page. The Beard (I'd have thought he would deserve his own page!) reference ("Social Security Administration") is repeated elsewhere but there is no specific external reference. Perhaps it should be removed until one can be quoted. However, repeatedly adding your notes in different forms despite the consensus of this page is really quite counterproductive. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool. As I said in my response to SiameseTurtle below, I now understand what the guideline is. I had been under a different mistaken assumption. (partially due to a couple of other references that had been included which are now removed, one by SiameseTurtle and one by myself) I realize only strictly age-verification information is appropriate. Regards, and apologies if I offended in any way. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The other references you mentioned are there because we cannot make a fool-proof list of the oldest people, as we have people who are disputed. In this case, it is important to highlight those so that people reading the article can come to their own decision if they want to include people like Izumi or not - but we need to give them the whole information about what and why they are disputed. (Although having said that, I don't think "Matthew Beard is recognized by the Social Security Administration as the oldest ever American-born man." is relevant for this page, and would support removing it). These are helpful as they allow the reader to better understand and interpret the information given to them. What you are adding however is a collection of facts that don't really add anything to the article. It's still trivia whether it's in the main body, or in reference tags. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a very clear and concise explanation, SiameseTurtle; Thank you very much for explaining the inclusion/exclusion line. I had mistakenly assumed a different line, but I certainly see how information related to the age of the person exclusively would be a good place at which to draw the line. I see that you removed the Matthew Beard reference. There is really only one other that needs to be edited to conform to the guideline that you laid out, and I can take care of that. Sorry again guys if I ruffled any feathers, I had just thought originally the information might be valuable. Take care. :) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Siamese, Cards: Good work in getting some consistent use of "?", "c." and "fl." Canada Jack (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm

Looks like we have a man in the top 10 oldest living people for the first time in nearly 2 years. 58.165.14.208 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"c." vs. "?"

Canada Jack wrote: "There is a distinction between 'c.' (person born about that date) and '?' (question about validity of date of birth, actual age etc)". Due to the nature of the article, most dates of birth are based upon claimed age and any proof that can be found to support such an age. It is my supposition that a "?" should be used if it is just a claim by the individual and no proof is presented, and a "c." if there is a question about the actual date of birth but there is some evidence of at least a general time frame. Ok, now you guys weigh in and tell me what I am getting wrong, haha. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The distinction here - and we also include "fl." - is between dates which are in dispute and dates which are approximate. Most of the claims on the page are solid, document-wise. But a few are disputed, for whatever reason (in most cases the nature of the dispute is clarified in a note). In those cases, such as Izumi's, there is a "?" as there is enough uncertainty about the claim to hold it to question. The date itself often has specific backing but other evidence casts doubt on whether that person is rightly associated with that date. I think there is only the Graham case which uses the "c." as she is the only case where her age at death was known, 113 years six months, but not her precise date of birth. I don't know the particulars of the case, but there may have been some early document which listed her as being, say, six months old, and this proved her claim, though not her date of birth. So it is an easy matter to estimate her approximate date of birth, and that warrants the "c." as opposed to a "?" which suggests there is a dispute about that date, that she was, say, actually 10 years younger.

And there are several cases where we don't know when an elderly person died, but that they were alive as of a specific date. In those cases, "fl." short for "flourit" meaning "living", is inserted and instead of a "?" there or on the age, a "+" is added to the person's age.

In sum, because a "?" typically refers to disputed cases, we don't use it in cases where there is no dispute per se but minor uncertainty about a person's age. Canada Jack (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: regarding the Martha Graham case, it is both a c and ? case. The claimed age at death was "118" years. Research by E. Ross Eckler located her in the 1900 census, born Dec. 1844 (age 55) in June 1900. The Guinness Book added her as a footnote, which stated that her "actual age" was believed to be 114 1/2 years. In 1986, at the age of 12, I wrote to Guinness World Records suggesting that she be upgraded to the American recordholder (because age 114 1/2 was still greater than 113...the American recordholder at the time was Fannie Thomas at 113 years 283 days). Unbelievably, the very next Guinness edition had done just that (adding Martha Graham as the American recordholder at 114).

Thank you for the clarification. I am still a bit confused on the distinction (it seems like some cases could go either way), but that is not uncommon. (me being confused, that is, haha) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that this case is what I consider a "grandfathered" case...it was accepted based on standards that would not be acceptable today (in 1999, Jean-Marie Robine proposed the 20-year-rule for validation by proxy; in other words, someone would have to locate Martha Graham in the 1860 census to comply with today's rules.

However, no one has bothered to re-investigate this case or question its validity, so perhaps c is best for now. There is no date of birth, only a month and year. Since Guinness gave the age as 114 years c180 days (assuming 114 1/2), that would be born around December 27. However, this is all admittedly sloppy...Ryoung122 23:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that the research from the 1900 census indicated a Dec 1844 birthdate, Guinness gave a round day count of 180 days for six months, then we've subsequently worked backwards to give a circa date from that 180? Seems to me that the "c" should stay with the "180" days, and the month should be "Dec." with no "c." Is that how Guinness has it? Indeed, we seem to be the only ones who have fixed a specific date "dec 27" when a quick look at the sources seem to only say "dec" presumably as the 1900 census only lists month of birth.

And further, since it is now far easier to search census data, has anyone gone back to try to find Graham in the 1850-1890 censuses? I know that the 1890 census is not of much use, but has it been done? A quick search of the 1880 census finds one possible match, but I am curious if this has been done. And a search of the 1910, 1920 and 1930 censuses might also reveal a specific day of birth. Of course, anything discovered there would need to be inserted on the various source lists before being re-inserted here... Canada Jack (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, the 1900 census lists Martha Graham as born December 1844 (no date given). Guinness first said 114 1/2 years, then later changed it to 114 years c180 days, which readers took to mean "circa Dec 27". There has been no indication of December 27 that I have seen. Yes, it might be possible to re-investigate this case. I suggest we take this discussion to the WOP board as "original research" is not allowed on Wikipedia...research must be done elsewhere first.Ryoung122 06:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The 1910, 1920, and 1930 censuses do NOT give month, year, or date of birth, only age. The 1900 census gives month and year of birth. The 1890 census was 97% destroyed by fire. The best hope would be to find a match in 1860, 1870, and/or 1880 (the theory is that the earlier the find, the more reliable)...but then we'd need to know the maiden name. E. Ross Eckler once mailed me the details on this case (he is now 81 years old). I will have to look for it....Ryoung122 06:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest we change the birth information to "Dec 1844" and put the "c" for her claimed age at death. To read "114 years. c. 180 days." It seems someone inserted a more specific date when "December" is as close to accurate as we have. And, further, that we insert a note as to the question about her claimed age of 118 and that Guinness accepted the claim as of 1987. It shouldn't be too hard to do searches for the censuses in question. Too bad about the date of birth. The 1901 Canadian census lists date of birth. Handy. Canada Jack (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ella Rentel, world's oldest person 1962?

Greetings,

Documentation for the Ella Rentel case (May 19, 1852-Sept 19 1962) has been received as of 8 November 2008. If accepted, this case will be a new "world's oldest person" (revised) for March-Sept 1962. Born in Lithuania (Russian Empire), she died in West Germany.Ryoung122 11:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This has now been inserted into the chronology on the main page. But has this been accepted? I don't see it on GRG or Epstein. Is someone jumping the gun here? Canada Jack (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Someone is jumping the gun here. This case looks good but until it appears on the GRG or Epstein lists, then there's no source for it. Of course I'd like to think of the WOP as a source but haven't gotten around to it yet.Ryoung122 05:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No slight intended there, Robert... Canada Jack (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If sended the information about Ella Ille Rentel also to Louis Epstein and hope that it will be exepted, too.
Btw.: She ist older than Helen Czechowicz, born in Lithuania, too, and listed as oldest person born in the Russian Empire...
--Statistician (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Josep Armengol of Spain, world's oldest man 1994

Greetings,

Documentation has been received for a new Spanish "world's oldest man", born in 1881.

Details soon.Ryoung122 11:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

From http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/11413

Josep Armengol (1881 - 1994) Message List

Reply | Forward | Delete Message #11413 of 11820 < Prev | Next >

Hello,

I have completed the validation of this case thanks to the online archive of newspaper La Vanguardia, which allowed me to check that the person born in 1881 was the same who died in 1994.

THE CLAIM Josep Armengol Jover was born on July 23, 1881 and died on Jan. 20, 1994 at 112 years and 181 days of age. If true, he would be: - The oldest man in the World (June 1993 - Jan. 1994) - The oldest man in Spain (Jan. 1990 - Jan. 1994) - The second oldest man in Spain ever after Joan Riudavets. - The oldest person in Spain (Mar. 1990 - Jan. 1994)

VALIDATION Birth Certificate (Terrassa) - José Armengol Jover was born in Terrassa on July 23, 1881 - Parents: Pedro Armengol Padrós and Dolores Jover Barba - Grandparents: Pedro Armengol&María Padrós and Agustín Jover&Rosa Barba - Note: Cross-reference to the death record in Barcelona

Death Certificate (Barcelona) - José Armengol Jover died in Barcelona on Jan. 20, 1994 - Born in Terrassa on July 23, 1881 - Parents: Pedro Armengol and Dolores Jover - Note: Cross-reference to the birth in Terrassa

Son's Birth Certificate (Terrassa) - Amadeo Armengol Gibert was born in Terrassa on July 25, 1910 - Parents: José Armengol Jover (28) and Filomena Gibert Comellas (21) - Grandparents: Pedro Armengol & Dolores Jover and Pablo Gibert & Rosa Comellas

Son's Obituary (June 1973) - He died in Barcelona at age 62. - Her parents (José and Filomena) are confirmed to be alive.

Parents' and siblings' obituaries - Pedro Armengol (father, 69, Jun 1916). Wife (Dolores) and 3 children (José, Agustín and Rosa) alive. - Dolores Jover (mother, 101, Feb 1952). 3 children alive. - Agustín Armengol(brother, 71, oct. 1955). Brother José and sister Rosa alive. - Rosa Armengol (sister, 85, Jul. 1973). Brother José alive.

He married for a second time at age 99 with Teresa Delclós after the death of his fist wife (Filomena Gibert) at age 90.

I have sent all the documents supporting this case to Robert.

Regards, Miguel Quesada

Regards Robert Young Ryoung122 11:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Has this case been officially validated? Seems on a par to the Ella Rentel discussion above to me. SiameseTurtle (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

He's now on Epstein's list. Rental last I checked is not. Canada Jack (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

New oldest ever person found; *to be confirmed*

128 year old woman, Tuti Yusupova, found in Uzbekistan. Not officially confirmed yet but looks genuine. Here's the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7857591.stm

Sorry for folks who can't see the video. Cider86 (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense from an uninformed reporter. Note that also on BBC, we can find myriad reports of UFOs and aliens:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/lincolnshire/content/articles/2009/01/06/lincolnshire_ufo_feature.shtml

Some news organizations have become info-tainment.

Also, I have a question: if age 128 is six years beyond anything officially reached, how would you know what a "128" year-old looks like?Ryoung122 12:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A document on Microsoft Word does not constitute a birth certificate. Secondly the document she holds has another date on it: 28/11/1997, which I assume is the date the certificate was issued. Again that doesn't confirm a birthdate of 1880 (also note the date isn't given so was probably an estimation anyway). SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What? Microsoft Word didn't exist yet in 1880? No way!Ryoung122 12:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there is an "aging" program on photoshop - just type in the age and you see what a 128-year-old looks like! If you type in "700," you end up with an image of dust... Canada Jack (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OTHER SOURCES

I am a professional genealogist. I have come across a number of people who belong on the list of oldest people ever. I also note there isn't an oldest women ever, only an oldest men. Verified by the social security index and backed up by census, there are a number of people whose age was never investigated or verified by Guinness or others.Daviddaniel37 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to e-mail me, the world's leading expert, I'll evaluate what you have. E-mail me at ryoung122@yahoo.com with your case presentation.

I am not only the Senior Consultant for Gerontology for Guinness World Records, the Senior Claims Researcher for the Gerontology Research Group, a co-founder of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation, but also a researcher for the New England Supercentenarian Study, a contributor to the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research and the International Database on Longevity. I am the only person in the world involved in every major group that studies supercentenarians.Ryoung122 09:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is not a country

It is part of the United States (while it is on it's way of becoming either a state or a country, it has not been decided, which the people want yet). So it should say "Puerto Rico, United States" and have the US flag.--24.171.0.229 (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a part of the United States. When the U.S. Census reports the nation's population, Puerto Rico's 3.8 million persons are NOT included...but D.C.'s population is.Ryoung122 18:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that Puerto Rico is not a part of the United States but is a possession of the United States. The key term is "Unincorporated territory," which is what Puerto Rico is, as that means PR is not considered part of the United States proper. It is essentially a colony. So PR is not a country, but neither it is a part of the United States. It is colony, more or less, of the United States. Canada Jack (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Jane Pittman

I think Jane Pittman (Sometime in 1851 or 1852 to 1962) she was 110 years old when she died making her one of the oldest African American to ever live. She was a Slave as a Child and evently fought freedom. Buffyfan882 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

That was a work of fiction. Miss Jane Pittman was a character in a novel, not a real person.Ryoung122 05:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No she was an actual person the book was her autobiography —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffyfan882 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the above poster is sincere, one should not cite as evidence the word "autobiography" in the title. Since the author's name is Ernest Gaines (born 1933), there should be a rather non-subtle clue here that the novel is a work of fiction.

But, don't take my word or the word of Robert above. Here is the author's own words: "Some people have asked me whether or not The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman is fiction or nonfiction. It is fiction... I think people were also thrown off by the introduction that I put into the book, where a young professor from a high school or a college in Baton Rouge goes to this plantation to interview this old lady with a tape recorder... The introduction is fiction just as the novel is. I created all of this. I did a lot of research in books to give some facts to what Miss Jane could talk about, but these are my creations. I read quite a few interviews performed with former slaves by the WPA during the thirties and I got their rhythm and how they said certain things. But I never interviewed anybody. Since The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman came out, I've gotten all these requests asking me to interview old people. I've said, 'Listen I don't know anything about interviewing old people!' I wrote a book!" [1] Cheers Canada Jack (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh Ok thanks I wasn't sure anyway thanks Buffyfan882

Sorry my daughter Christine wrote that she learned about Jane in her History class she thought she was real, but I tried to tell her she's not she wouldn't believe but she'd believe someone on Wikipedia but that's a teenager for you anyway thanks. Buffyfan882 —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

Oldest people/women

All that was discussed before was keeping or removing the oldest women table. It was removed primarily because of the repetition of information (9 of the top 10 women are in the top 10 people). Never was it discussed the possibility of merging these into one table. Wikipedia encourages people to be bold, and that is what I'm doing. Wikipedia is a source of information and someone may want to know the top 10 oldest people, women, and men. Why should we display the top 10 oldest men (as we did when we had over 10 verified men over 110), but not the top 10 oldest women? SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

its not fair, they should tell who the tenth oldest living man is wether he is 110 or not, or it shouldnt say 10 oldest men but living men over 110, make up your mind, its a contradiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.240.34 (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Because either we do 10 men/10 women list, or we do 10 men/10 people list. And the consensus, like it or not, is to do the latter. Your attempt to do both here is in my eyes contrived and clumsy. What happens when another man makes the list, or two? Then we end up with a Top 12 or Top 13 list. Or, what happens when the #11 oldest person is a man, but you want to extend the list to include the 10th-oldest woman - but the way you have it almost forces you to include #11 man and then #12 woman to make it happen. So it becomes the "10 oldest people list and 10 oldest women list, except there is a guy who isn't in the top 10 list, but he's ahead of the 10th woman, so we better include him so you don't think that woman is #11 oldest person when she is in fact #12" list(And this is not some unlikely thing, either - currently a man is at #14).

Besides, the other lists are fairly consistent in keeping it to a top 10 list. Once we accept what you've done here, then we are pretty well forced to do the same with the all-time people list. Yet, in all these cases, there are links for those who want to see the longer lists. In the end, there should be a simple rule-of-thumb. A Top 10 list should be limited to 10 people. Only when there is doubt about someone's candidacy for the list should we mess with that simple principle. Canada Jack (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I see your point. However I still think we should be consistent with women/men lists. Here's an updated version of the table I made last year. I'd like people to comment as I think it's a legitimate alternative to the table we already have. SiameseTurtle (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The following table lists the 10 oldest women in the world along with any men aged over 110 years. Note that 90% of supercentenarians are female and many omitted female supercentenarians intersperse the lower-ranked men.

  Female   Male

Overall Rank	Male or Female Rank	Name	Age as of 5 November 2024	Born	Residence
1	1	Gertrude Baines	130 years, 213 days	6 April 1894	Oldest person in the world (since 2 January 2009). Lives in California, United States
2	2	Kama Chinen	129 years, 179 days	10 May 1895	Lives in Okinawa, Japan
3	3	Mary Josephine Ray	129 years, 172 days	17 May 1895	Lives in New Hampshire, United States
4	4	Olivia Patricia Thomas	129 years, 129 days	29 June 1895	Lives in New York, United States
5	5	Neva Morris	129 years, 94 days	3 August 1895	Lives in Iowa, United States
6	6	Chiyo Shiraishi	129 years, 91 days	6 August 1895	Lives in Ibaraki, Japan
7	1	Tomoji Tanabe	129 years, 48 days	18 September 1895	Oldest man in the world (since 24 January 2007). Lives in Miyazaki, Japan
8	7	Maggie Renfro	128 years, 357 days	14 November 1895	Lives in Louisiana, United States
9	8	Eugénie Blanchard	128 years, 263 days	16 February 1896	Lives in Saint Barthélemy, France
10	9	Lucia Lauria	128 years, 246 days	4 March 1896	Lives in Basilicata, Italy
11	10	Kou Iijima	128 years, 225 days	25 March 1896	Lives in Chiba, Japan
14	2	Henry Allingham	128 years, 152 days	6 June 1896	Lives in England, United Kingdom. World War I Veteran
18	3	Walter Breuning	128 years, 45 days	21 September 1896	Lives in Montana, United States
32	4	Jiroemon Kimura	127 years, 200 days	19 April, 1897	Lives in Kansai, Japan
47	5	Antonio de Castro	126 years, 304 days	6 January 1898	Lives in Portugal
62	6	Harry Patch	126 years, 141 days	17 June 1898	Lives in England, United Kingdom. World War I Veteran
67	7	Garland Adair	126 years, 98 days	30 July 1898	Lives in Missouri, United States

So far, it seems two of us already think this is not a good idea. The table above seems to be a solution seeking a problem. And in my view, it hopelessly confuses information which is much plainer as it stands already. For example, one may ask why there are only 7 men on the list when there are 10 women. It's not nearly as obvious as it was before. Further, the layout is simply confusing.

In the end, I think it is hard to justify any list which is not limited to a round number (10) or a significant milestone (reaching 110). I had argued before for a list of 10 women, but to include the 10 women within a list which could stretch to 12 or 13 makes it unwieldy and clumsy and, as I have already pointed out, forces you to list any man who wouldn't normally be on the lost simply as a placeholder. Your solution above is not helpful, in my view.

Further, it is inconsistent. All the other lists on the page are people/men. Sexist perhaps, but it reflects a demographic reality - that something like 90 per cent of super centenarians are women. To then insert a top women/top men list - when that information is readily available via the link - wrecks to flow of the page. If one is to insist on including the top 10 women (as I once insisted on, when there were 10 men it seemed odd to not know the 10th woman if a man was in the top 10 people list), there is perhaps a better "combined" solution. And that might be to keep two separate "top 10" lists but make them "top 10 women" and "top 10 men" and then include the other column to indicate each individual's rank in the over-all people list. So, we'd see 1-10 for women, with a second column running 1-9, then 11 for the tenth woman. For the men's list, we'd see, currently, 1-7, with the second column 7, 14, 18 etc for each male. I, personally, could live with that. I don't agree with an 11- or 12-deep list of oldest people extended to include the 10th woman. Canada Jack (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that would be 1-6, then 8-11 for the women's "overall" rank. Canada Jack (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think part of the problem is that this, though seemingly simple, requires a bit of higher-order thinking. If women live longer (that is, not just outnumber males 9 to 1 but outlive them by 2-3 years), then I really don't see the point of needing to list the "11th woman." Let's face it, Henry Allingham got a LOT more news coverage than C. Letitia Lawson. Yes, she was older...but not even one of the ten oldest women, while Allingham is the second-oldest man. So, issue #1 is that the relative significance is not the same...living to 113 for a man is much rarer than a woman reaching the same age. It follows, then, that perhaps the "overdog" (Goliath) doesn't deserve recognition when they finish 11th overall. Issue #2: sometimes we don't even have ten males. "Top ten" is just a cutoff mechanism.

However, the problem is that this argument requires Einstein's concept of relativity (you know, that Emma Tillman died on January 28 2007 but it was already January 29 2007 in Japan). For the simple masses, I suggest making three lists to make them happy: "oldest persons," "oldest women," and "oldest males." Note that since we have articles on all three, each top-ten list would be a summary of the article and have its own "main list: see (x)" listed.Ryoung122 21:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

11th woman

Comment: why should there be 10 women listed (but just 7 men)?Ryoung122 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rosa Rein confirmed

Rosa Rein is now confirmed as the oldest Swiss national. I have accordingly put her in the Swiss record-holder. However, I understand there is some dispute whether she should be given that title as she was born in Germany. Canada Jack (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll say this again: the GRG lists nationality records by place of birth. Otherwise, someone could simply "move" to "set" a record, and the national records would be meaningless. That Rosa Rein is verified by the GRG to be born March 24, 1897 does NOT mean that she is validated to be the Swiss recordholder. She was not born in Switzerland, and indeed didn't move there until middle age.Ryoung122 04:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, this is how the tables are organised on this page. It's not a table by place of birth. Florence, born in the UK is listed as the New Zealand recordholder. SiameseTurtle (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know who slipped that one in, but the sources (the GRG lists) don't list the information that way.Ryoung122 17:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I think we need to have a discussion: there are several ways to list this:

A. by birth nation

B. by death nation

C. only those born and died in the same nation and lived entire time in that nation

Let's talk about it.

Ryoung122 17:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember trying to stimulate this discussion a while ago and the consensus was either against me, or I got few comments.

In summary though, this page should be a summary of the many articles we have (hence lots of 'top 10' listings). We can't give this section too much space: We must be clear and concise.

At the moment, the table is ordered by place of death/residence. What that means is, whoever was the oldest to die in a certain country is listed. The Emigrant table lists anyone who exceeds the oldest death in their birth country, but has emigrated to another country. For example, Benkner emigrated from Germany and died in the USA. She isn't the oldest to die in Germany, and she isn't the oldest to die in the USA. However she can be considered the oldest German-born person, which is what the emigrant table is for.

I attempted to make a table that showed the information together, but I wasn't sure if this became too confusing or not:

The following table is a list of the oldest people from each country, ranked by age.

Emigrant cases are highlighted in blue. These are people, who have outlived any lifelong resident of their birth country, but have died in another country. Immigrant cases are highlighted in yellow, which represents those who have outlived any lifelong resident of their country of death, but were born in a different country.

Birth	Death	Age	Sex	Name	Born	Died
France		122 years 164 days	F	Jeanne Calment	21 February 1875	4 August 1997
Japan		120? years 237 days	M	Shigechiyo Izumi	29 June 1865?	21 February 1986
United States		119 years 97 days	F	Sarah Knauss	24 September 1880	30 December 1999
Canada		117 years 230 days	F	Marie-Louise Meilleur	29 August 1880	16 April 1998
Ecuador		116 years 347 days	F	María Capovilla	14 September 1889	27 August 2006
Denmark	United States	115 years 252 days	M	Christian Mortensen	16 August 1882	25 April 1998
United Kingdom		115 years 228 days	F	Charlotte Hughes	1 August 1877	17 March 1993
Romania		115? years 157 days	F	Anitica Butariu	30 June 1882?	21 November 1997
Netherlands		115 years 62 days	F	Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper	29 June 1890	30 August 2005
Portugal		131 years, 56 days	F	Maria de Jesus	10 September 1893	Living
Cape Verde	United States	114 years 183 days	F	Adelina Domingues	19 February 1888	21 August 2002
Germany	United States	114 years 180 days	F	Charlotte Benkner	16 November 1889	14 May 2004
Algeria	France	114 years 172 days	F	Anne Primout	5 October 1890	26 March 2005
Australia		114 years 148 days	F	Christina Cock	25 December 1887	22 May 2002
Spain		114 years 81 days	M	Joan Riudavets	15 December 1889	5 March 2004
Italy		114 years 4 days	F	Virginia Dighero-Zolezzi	24 December 1891	28 December 2005
India	United Kingdom	113 years 197 days	F	Lucy d'Abreu	24 May 1892	7 December 2005
United Kingdom	New Zealand	113 years 109 days	F	Florence Finch	22 December 1893	10 April 2007
Sweden		113 years 0 days	F	Astrid Zachrison	15 May 1895	15 May 2008

Well, in case anyone sees the need to insert her record, there is the reason why it's not there. To be clear, will she set a German record if she survives another year, despite now being a Swiss citizen? Canada Jack (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, she won't. Rein is an emigrated case. The longest-lived German emigrant was Benkner. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting alternative to what we have now. As usual, it has some benefits (Mortensen and Denmark are listed at 115) and a downside (Denmark's oldest resident, 111, wouldn't be listed). However, since this gives maximum weight to the "oldest" and less weight to political division and emigrant/immigrant status, I would be inclined to agree that this would be an improvement. One solution would be to move the current tables to the "main article" and use this combo for this article, which, as you said, is meant to provide a "summary" of the most important information, not the complete story.Ryoung122 11:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sakhan Dosova, unverified, claim to 130 yo

Do we add these sort of entries? Obviously Guiness hasn't made a determination yet, but is this legit enough to place in the article? -- Chupon (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Afraid not, but she can go to the longevity claims page. Only validated people go on the oldest people page. Let's face it: The passport looks very recent, and I would say she looks more like 70 than 100. And a grand-daughter who is 88 years younger? They also say "According to one version of her life, she must have given birth to several children over the age of 60". I think this case is pretty unlikely to be true. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Doctors still back her claim though. Revan46 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Doctors have no way to verify such a claim. It's not as if there is a medical database out there for "typical" 130-year-olds.(!)Canada Jack (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change to content order

I've been watching this page for a while. Can I suggest that the first two content headers [1 Chronology of oldest living people (since 1955) 2 Chronology of oldest living men (since 1961)] be moved from the top of the page to the bottom (or closer to the bottom) of the page? These tables are persistent and will just get longer and longer. I think many people coming here will want to see the current oldest, and as such that should be closer to the top of the page. It's a big change, I don't want to just make it without bringing it up here first.Jbarco (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I brought it up, I would propose the order:
1 Oldest validated people currently living (top 10) [currently 5]
2 Oldest men currently living (aged over 110 years) [currently 6]
3 Oldest verified people ever (top 10)[unchanged]
4 Oldest verified men ever (top 10) [unchanged]
5 Chronology of oldest living people (since 1955) [currently 1]
6 Chronology of oldest living men (since 1961) [currently 2]
7 onward--same order
Jbarco (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No one said anything, so I went ahead and changed it.--Jbarco (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the order change. Many on the list of "oldest living people" will NOT make it to #1. Do we remember who was in the playoffs more than who won? In tennis, the French Open started with 128 players. Do we remember the top 8, or who won? I think these lists make more sense AFTER the list of the world's oldest people, since it includes people who:

A. Will be deleted from the list if they die today, with no legacy secured

B. People who MIGHT become a titleholder in the future...but then they'll be on the "World's Oldest People" list, right?

And while we're at it, I'd prefer a rename to "World's Oldest People" because it's not clear what this article is about currently.Ryoung122 02:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point (about the order) but that being said, the previous order did not make any sense either, based on your logic as well. The start of the page was the oldest since 1956, a running list/table that got longer and longer every year, pushing the rest of the content further and further down the page. It is less relevant who was the oldest person in 1956 than either 1) who is the oldest living person or 2) who is the all-time oldest person. --Jbarco (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

National & Emigrant Records

Someone changed the "National Records" and "Emigrant Records". The discuss about this section in the section s"Rosa Rein" ended in March and now it's changed in a strange way: As far as I know the "emigrant records" listed person born in a country and died in an other but who were older then the national record holder. "Mary Josephine Ray" is younger the the canadian record holder "Marie-Louise Meilleur"; he also changed from "Rosa Rein" to "Emma Duvoisin" but didn't but "Rosa Rein" on the emigration table like "Florence Finch"(born in the UK, died in New zeland, older then "Ethel Booth" but younger then "Charlotte Hughes". Isn't it riht that "Manolita Pina" was born in Spain?
So how will we handel this in the furture? Emigrant record only if older than other persons born in the country or for emigrants that are older then the oldest person born and died in that country? Two different lists? Other question nation list only for persons born and died in that country? It that, what with austria-hungarian cases? A lot of people were born in austria-hungarian but lived after WWI in an other country because austria-hungary didn't existed any more. Btw.: Maria Mika was born in the bohemian part of austria-hungary, later czechia.
Your opinions?
--Statistician (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello,
I saw that someone changed "Germany " today "Germany (now Poland)" on the "Rosa Rein"-entry - but only on her entry. "Elizabeth Stefan" was born in the hungarian part of austria-hungary but her place of birth is today in romania, "Helen Czechowicz" in what's today "Lithuania" and "Maria Mika" what's today "Czechis", so why "Germany (now Poland)" but not "Austria-Hungary (now Romania)" and "Russian Empire (now Lithuania)"?
--Statistician (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that everyone is using their own standards of measure. Elizabeth Stefan's family considered her "Hungarian". A person's nationality is more than just where the border was at the time of birth.Ryoung122 01:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Robert! I wasn't talking about nationality. Elizabeth Stefan clearly is of hungarian origian. Her Place of birth was at thsi time part of hungary too, but it changed to Romania after WWI. Btw.: Rosa Rein is of german origian and nobody claimed that she's of polish origian. As always I think we should have the same standards. So if the birth of plce of Rosa Rein is listed as Germany (now Poland) we should do this things on others, too, or don't do it on Rosa Rein at all.
Btw.: Someone changed a lot of things on the page, also the emigration table. The person put all emigrates of the list, he now - but not all of them where older then the oldest person living and dying in this country. So we realy want to make a list for oldest emmigrates from each to any other? I think the list now isn't coincident.
Do you realy want on the list oldest person born in the Russian Empire and died in USA? Or Anna Stephan (born Bohemia, austrian party of austria-hungary, died in germany), Catherine Trompeter (born Germany, died France), Johanna Meyer-Zettel (born germany, died italy) and Venere (Pizzinato) Papo (born austrian party of austria-hungary, living in Italy) on the list? Isn't it better to delete Mary Josephine Ray, Amalia Ruggieri, Ito Konno Kinase, Mary Marques, Gunhild Foerster and Anna Silverdahl?

--Statistician (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Age Range

I don't think we need exact-day counts for the age range. There is too much focus here on the detail, and not the big picture.Ryoung122 01:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ella Rentel, world's oldest person 1962, coming soon

Just to let you know this case will be on the next update of www.recordholders.org.Ryoung122 01:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Consuelo Moreno

Was born in Spanish Morocco (a Spanish colony), not the current nation of Morocco.Ryoung122 01:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Morocco has been since 1912, she was born before: in Tangier there was a Spanish community because of its position. The red flag (without star) is of Kingdom of Morocco before Spanish domination.--Pascar (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok I stand corrected. However, she did live there from 1912 until 1960, during the time it was Spanish Morocco.Ryoung122 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Too Many Details?

Hello everbody this is Frosty87 I don;t know why some people on this web forum seem intent on deleting my work I merly was telling people here the ages the people were when they became the Oldest person in the world but for some reason or other people here seem to want to desory my work.In my opinon it does not matter what a article loooks like as long as it gets the message acroos and increases knowledge but every sometimes when I try to do that here it gets deleted.Sorry about being so cross but thats the way I feel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frosty87 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're probably talking about the full ages that were put into the table in the 'age when oldest column'. I undid that because it stretched the column too much and made the data hard to read. It's very easy to glance at the column when it just says 110 - 112 and understand it. If you look at it when it says 110 years, 238 days - 112 years, 90 days then it becomes difficult to read by glance. Because this column became so wide, other columns became squashed on low resolution screens. It does matter what a table looks like because a poorly constructed and imbalanced table is hard to read (and prevents the message getting across). SiameseTurtle (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Siamese. Not only was the chart getting gummed up, I'm not sold on the idea that we need to know someone's age to the day when they became world's oldest person. In the end, the added info wasn't particularly relevant. Canada Jack (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the "year" counts better. It makes it easier to understand that the maximum ages don't vary that much...especially at the valleys. Since the late 1980s, the world's oldest person has been at least 114...yet as recently as 2009, it dipped to as low as 114. To me, to notice the long-term trend is more important than micro-analysis. Don't forget that with a sample size of one, you introduce chance. With a larger sample, the data become more meaningful.Ryoung122 19:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have always felt that the age at which the oldest person died and the length of time they held the "title" were unnecessary and made the tables too messy. I believe they were added by a user who tried to add various "records" about longest and shortest tenure etc (see Talk:Oldest people#Summary chart above) but was outvoted. if there is a poll to remove this info I would be in favour of the removal. DerbyCountyinNZ 05:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I belive that the dates in which the oldest people held the "title" are kind of nice such as Jeanne Calment held the "title" from Febuary 14,1991 until Augest 4,1997

Oldest POLISCH people

Miejsce	Imię i nazwisko	Aktualny wiek	Data urodzenia	Województwo
1	Marianna Ostrowska	111	5 sierpnia 1897	podlaskie
2	Michalina Wasilewska	110	21 grudnia 1898	mazowieckie
3	Józef Kowalski	109	2 lutego 1900	lubuskie
4	Apolonia Lisowska	109	18 lutego 1900	mazowieckie
5	Julianna Szewczyk	109	1 czerwca 1900	mazowieckie
6	Julianna Garbacz	108	czerwiec 1900	świętokrzyskie
7	Jadwiga Wrzos	108	6 listopada 1900	mazowieckie
8	Helena Kucharska	107	21 października 1901	kujawsko-pomorskie
9	Konstanty Jung	107	1 listopada 1901	lubelskie
10	Bolesław Krugło	107	22 stycznia 1902	wielkopolskie
11	Marianna Misiewicz	107	26 stycznia 1902	podlaskie
12	Adam Zemanowicz	107	2 lutego 1902	kujawsko-pomorskie
13	Maria Kutyła	106	12 lipca 1902	podkarpackie
14	Maria Jóźków	106	15 lipca 1902	opolskie
15	Marianna Szewczyk	106	7 grudnia 1902	wielkopolskie
15	Marian Utnik	106	7 grudnia 1902	mazowieckie

Archiving

This talk page needs archiving again. There are a lot of sections which are no longer relevant. Unless someone would like to do it manually I'll add a bot. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 05:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)