Talk:Oldest people

Oldest living people since 1955

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chinese supercentenarians

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

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

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

Stanley Lucas

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

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

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

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

110years, oldest Polish man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Longest living POLISH people

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

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

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

Jadwiga Wrzos - last information 07-11-2008

Konstanty Jung - last information 03-11-2008

Julianna Garbacz - last information 18-04-2008

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

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

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

or better

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

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

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

Juana Bautista

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

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

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

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

verified/disputed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about this woman...

What about:

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

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

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

Maria Tomson

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

Large changes by Tim198

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

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

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

Hey Paul,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have to say I agree with the IP address, particularly on the matter of shortening the lead, as the changes are somewhat anathema to WP:LEAD. Anyhow, I think that you may misunderstand how consensus works Tim198. It is not "I'm going to make this edit and it's going to stay that way until enough people disagree with me". It is "I made this edit, I got reverted, now I'm going to see if enough people agree with me to add it back in." See this flowchart. Furthermore, the only reason that this page was inconsistent in the first place was because you unilaterally removed him from all the other pages ([1], [2], [3], [4]), after posting a discussion not on his own page, then claimed that "I waited a week but got no response so I made the changes anyway." Reinserting him right now would be appropriate as, per that discussion which everyone has just become aware of, there is obviously significant opposition to this move. For the sake of civility, however, I can compromise on leaving things as they are (it will not be difficult to readd him whenever I think) for now, and carry on the discussion IF we leave (or rather, restore) the uncertainty about his age that was removed by User:NickOrnstein to the actual Moses Hardy article for the time being. Does that sound fair? Canadian Paul 02:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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