Talk:Oldest people: Difference between revisions

Longevity B‑class Top‑importance

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

Talk:Oldest people/Archives

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]