Talk:Oldest people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Cruz Hernández

Shouldn't she be said to be the oldest living person? I mean, according to San Slavador she is the oldest person. Also, she had her "128th" birthday yesterday. Yes, I relieze if she is really that old she would have had her first child when she was 37, then she had 12 more. There is a women named Janise Wulf whom gave birth to 12th child when she was 62. This is evidence enough that Cruz Hernandez having her first child when she was 37 is very likely! I am going to make an article about her, and I think you all should have her be called the oldest women on here, too. Dexter111344 22:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Well, I would if I new how! Dexter111344 22:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I suppose you believe in UFO's, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster, too. This claim has not even applied to Guinness. Instead, they took the route of newspaper publicity. In any case, that's what the longevity claims article is for...for people like Cruz Hernandez whose claims of extreme age are NOT validated. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 10:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph content

I think there is too much info included in the opening para. The opening para is usually a summary of the data from the rest of the article. This article is a set of lists of oldest people. The only info that deserves to be duplicated in the opening para are signficant facts from this list that our readers might want without having to read through the list.

It currently reads:

The longest documented lifespan is the 122 years 164 days of Jeanne Calment (1875–1997). Jeanne Calment recalled meeting Vincent Van Gogh at age 14 in her father's shop and of attending the 1885 funeral of Victor Hugo. Calment's life was documented in the records of her native city of Arles, France, beyond reasonable doubt. For unverified claims, see longevity claims.

The Guinness Book of World Records in 1978 accepted the claim that Shigechiyo Izumi was born June 29, 1865, and from the 1980 edition considered him the oldest person. He died February 21, 1986 (the 111th birthday of Jeanne Calment). However, there is still doubt as to whether he was wrongly conflated with a brother who died young.

The current oldest verified person, as recognized by the Guinness records is Maria Esther de Capovilla of Ecuador, born September 14, 1889.

The worlds oldest verified living man is Emiliano Mercado del Toro of Puerto Rico (born August 21, 1891).

For supercentenarians known for anything other than their extreme age, see centenarians.

I believe the signficant facts that should be highlighted are:

• That the oldest person ever was Jeanne Calment
• That her age was 122 years, 164 days
• That she lived from 1875 to 1997
• That she was from Arles, France
• That this has been satisfactorily documented beyond doubt
• That there are other unverified claims on another page
• That the oldest living person is Maria Capovilla
• That she is from Ecuador
• That she is currently aged 116
• That she was born on Sept 14, 1889
• That this is per the Guinness Records and so excludes other claims
• That the oldest living man is Emiliano Del Toro
• That he is from Puerto Rico
• That he was born Augst 21, 1891
• That he is aged 114 years.

I propose removing the following facts because they are not as significant and do not deserve to be highlighted. They distract from easy reading of the significant facts

• That Jeanne Calment met long dead celebrities such as Vincent Van Gogh
• That she was 14 when she met him
• That she met him in her fathers shop

Those 3 are better reported on the Jeanne Calment page. In addition, another editor has questioned those facts.

• That Jeanne Calment attended the funeral of Victor Hugo
• That the funeral took place in 1885

• That Guinness accepted the claims of Shigechiyo Izumi
• That they accepted that claim in 1978
• That they considered him the oldest person from 1980

It doesn't say 'oldest living person', and it doesnt say that he was the oldest living person from 1976 to 1986, but gives the less relevant, more confusing dates of 1978 and 1980. The corresponding dates are not given for Jeanne Calment or Maria Capovilla

• That the way they confirmed this was by publishing it in their edition
• That Shigechiyo Izumi was born June 29 1865
• That he died February 21 1986
• That this was the 111th birthday of Jeanne Calment
• That there is still doubt about his birth-date
• That the doubt is related to a brother who 'died young' (died at a young age)

Principally, why single out this person from the list of 31 'oldest ever', particularly when there is doubt about his date of birth. Perhaps it is because he is 'probably' the 2nd oldest ever, or the oldest man ever, but neither of those is mentioned. And if the 2nd oldest ever is to be mentioned in addition to Jeanne Calment, then shouldn't the 2nd current oldest - Lizzie Bolden - be mentioned also?. Soln: Keep it short, mention neither.

As a result, I propose to remove the entire Shigechiyo Izumi paragraph and remove the extraneous facts about Jeanne Calment in about 7 days time.

If you disagree, then why. Or propose an alternative subset of the current facts.

Rye,

First I'd like to mention that the opening paragraph was written by Louis Epstein, originally as part of the 'supercentenarians' article, which was then butchered into two (now 'supercentenarians' and 'oldest people'). I think that the paragraphs are fine the way they are. Part of history is to relate past events to the present. To simply robotically state what the records are now, without giving a history of how those records came to be, is shortsighted. Also, the Izumi case, right or wrong, is very important for many reasons. First and foremost, Izumi is still listed by Guinness World Records as the oldest man ever. Second, the Izumi case represents a transitional phase from previously taking people at their word (thus Charlie Smith '137' years old) to expecting a higher standard (age verification process). That the Izumi case may have failed to meet expectations of veracity only points to the need of higher standards.

As for Jeanne Calment, it may seem colloquial that she met Vincent Van Gogh or Victor Hugo, but the whole point is that these are people, not robots; their age is significant in the context of surviving historic change, and the best way to relate the significance of their status is to note the historic changes in their lifetime.

Also, Wikipedia has 'lots of free space' and so spacing is not an issue. Let's NOT go around tearing down others' work when it appears that it has stood a long time (3+ years).

Regards Robert Young → R Young {^yakł_talk} 10:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think the issue here is our understanding of the context of the article. I see it as a list of oldest people, and was in fact planning to propose a move to that name. From the talk pages of the parent supercentenarian article, from which this was split about 3 months ago, I see that authors with a longer involvment would see it as probably the central article on the study of older people. In that case, it could have info on disputed facts, info on when facts became known etc, but that needs to be made clear in the intro. Also, perhaps the article should be called 'Gentrology'. As it stands, the un-initiated layman would see this article as a list, nothing more. Then you get into a debate about the audience for wp articles. If experts are to be catered for, it should not be at the expense of the average reader.

Although I agree that the split from supercentenarian was an inelegant job, there were understandable motives. However, I want to avoid that debate. We are where we are now.

You said those sentences were written 3 years ago when the supercentenarian article was created. I went back to see. Giving them 3 months to 'bed in' I took the [from Jan 2004] which was:

The oldest documented supercentenarian is Jeanne Calment (1875-1997). While her stories of meeting Vincent Van Gogh or attending the 1885 funeral of Victor Hugo might have been embroidered, her life was documented in the records of her native city of Arles, France, beyond reasonable question.

The Guinness Book of World Records in 1978 accepted the age claim of Shigechiyo Izumi, born June 29, 1865, and died February 21, 1986 (the 111th birthday of Jeanne Calment!). However, there is still doubt as to whether he was wrongly conflated with a brother who died young.

For supercentenarians known for anything other than their extreme age, see the centenarians article. Here are a list of other particularly aged individuals:

I think that old version supports my argument. Much simpler, less confusing (but could still do with improvement). It also illustrates that it has been 'changed' since, so further changes are open. The whole point of wp is that nothing stands still and everything can be improved.

You have given some info on the significance of Izumi that would enhance the opening para, I will use it.

The significance of Jeanne Calment is that she was 122 yrs old. Whether that occurred in the time of Victor Hugo or in the time of King Henry VIII is significant as an illustration of the level of documentation now available - again, principally of concern to Gentrologists only.

Use of the term 'tearing down' is your POV and I dislike its application to my work. My only interest in WP is to enhance what already exists. Contributing on my own, as we all do, means I cannot verbally confirm my approach with anyone in advance. Guidelines suggest we be bold and if others do not agree we can revet and debate, as we are now doing. Generally, this approach works for my contributions.

Rye,

First off, 'gentrology' is a little-used Britishism, and I am tired of the Brits trying to dictate Britishisms to Americans. Last I checked, the word had a total of just 3 unique hits on Google, from North England and Vancouver, Canada. Hence, it seems like a newly-coined term and certainly NOT one that others would expect to use.

Apologies, I meant to use the first word from www.grg.org - Gerontology, but I misread it - probably due to my European English background. Will change. Those 'Brits' won't get any help from me in dictating Britishisms ;) -- Rye1967 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Further, I completely disagree with your historical reference to King Henry VIII. In King Henry's time, reaching 80 years old would have been significant, and perhaps 90 in that time would be comparable to 110 today. Thus, your argument fails to see the contextual change over time. To me, Jeanne Calment must exist in context to be significant. Suppose 500 years from now, people are living to 150 with regularity. In that sense, Jeanne Calment would be significant only in the context of being "122 in 1997."

Fair point. However lack of historical conext was only an issue in my first draft, when I had a completely different approach to the entire article. The draft to which you are responding (further down this page) already contains all of the original historical context. -- Rye1967 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I begrudingly did not oppose the supercentenarians/oldest people separation because I realized that if someone were the 'oldest person' at 109 in the 1960's, they would not be a 'supercentenarian' using the 110+ definition. That said, I don't think "List of Oldest People" is appropriate...what about 'oldest people to climb Mount Everest,' 'oldest conjoined twins' 'oldest veterans' etc. There needs to be a specificity to 'oldest documented persons' or 'world's oldest authenticated persons' or something to that effect. Thus, I don't think a simple 'list' format is a good idea.

If we needed to, we could find something suitable that began "List of ...". But we don't need to, because we've agreed that this article isn't just a list of records, but is about those records, including their historical context. However I would still support a change in the name of this article if you want to propose one. -- Rye1967 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As for being 'bold.' There's an old saying, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Aside from you, no one has objected to the article's format or intro. Just one person. Thus, you are creating work from a minority standpoint while destroying valuable context, in order to reformat the article to your worldview. Aside from minor mistakes like misspelling 'copied,' I don't like anything you have here to offer. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No valuable context is destroyed, it's all there. Not imposing my entire worldview framework, just my view of the best structure an opening paragraph in a Wikipedia article. Can't find any misspelling of 'copied', perhaps you meant 'conied', will fix that.

Just because no-one has re-written the para, doesn't mean they all think it's perfect. For example, see silent majority. There are many other paragraphs in Wikipedia which have not been re-written, but could hardly be claimed as perfect. Every non-reverted/non-discussion contribution is an improvement to what the preceeding author thought was satisfactory. Calling my proposal a minority standpoint is pointless since there is no way to determine what the majority of Wikipedia readers think. Since only one person has objected to my proposal, I could call that objection a minority standpoint also. Alls we can do is try to reach a consensus. I will produce a 3rd proposal based on your points above, but since you find nothing of merit in my proposal, we need third party input. I will summarise my part of the debate and after a few days to give you time to make any points you wish, I will invite opinions from other contributors to this article to persuade either you or I to change our mind. -- Rye1967 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's my 2nd proposal based on the 3yr old version, and on your points above about the need for historical context and the evolving veracity standards.

Oldest people have always been a subject of interest in any community. In recent decades, world-wide research has solidified into a field of study known as Gentrology.

The population and ages of older people are continually increasing, due to the improvements in healthcare and lifestyle during the 19th and 20th centuries. It is now unsurprising to find individuals, more usually females, living to ages of 115 and more. The term supercentenarian has been conied to describe those who live to 110 or more.

As we move into the 21st century gentrological research reaps the benefit of the improvements in record-keeping in the industrialized world during the latter part of the 18th century. As a result, verification standards have evolved and multiple independent documentary confirmations of birth-date are now required to substantiate a claim, rather than evidence deriving only from the claimant. For claims that have not been satisfactorily confirmed by Guinness World Records, considered the authority, see Longevity claims.

The longest satisfactorily documented lifespan is that of Jeanne Calment (1875-1997) who was aged 122 years and 164 days at the time of her death. While her stories of meeting Vincent Van Gogh when aged 14, or attending the 1885 funeral of Victor Hugo might have been embroidered, her life was documented in the records of her native city of Arles, France beyond reasonable question.

Guinness World Records considers Shigechiyo Izumi of Japan (1865-1986) the oldest documented man, having reached 120 years and 137 days. This claim was accepted in 1978 but subsequent additional research has raised doubt as to whether he was wrongly conflated with a brother who died at a young age.

As of May 2006, the oldest verified living person is the 116-years old Maria Esther de Capovilla of Ecuador, born September 14, 1889. The oldest verified living man is Emiliano Mercado del Toro of Puerto Rico, born August 21, 1891.

The following tables list notable oldest people, in various categories. For supercentenarians known for anything other than their extreme age, see the centenarians article.

--Rye1967 20:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph rewrite - Proposal 3 - For Third party opinion

I propose to replace the opening paragraph with the following. User:Ryoung122 disagrees. Let us have your opinons on the value of this entire change, or any useful parts of it, so that we can reach a consensus.

Oldest people have always been a subject of interest in any community. In recent decades, world-wide research has solidified into a field of study known as Gerontology.

The population and ages of older people are continually increasing due to improvements in healthcare and lifestyle during the 19th and 20th centuries. It is now unsurprising to find individuals, usually females, living to ages of 115 and more. The term supercentenarian has been coined to describe those who live to 110 or more.

As we move into the 21st century gerontology is benefiting from the improvements in record-keeping in the industrialized world from the latter part of the 19th century. As a result, verification standards have evolved and multiple independent documentary confirmations of birth-date are now required to substantiate a claim, rather than evidence deriving only from the claimant. For claims that have not been satisfactorily confirmed by Guinness World Records, considered the authority, see Longevity claims.

The longest satisfactorily documented lifespan is that of Jeanne Calment (1875-1997) who was aged 122 years and 164 days at the time of her death. While her stories of meeting Vincent Van Gogh when aged 14, or attending the 1885 funeral of Victor Hugo might have been embroidered, her life was documented in the records of her native city of Arles, France beyond reasonable question.

Guinness World Records considers Shigechiyo Izumi of Japan (1865-1986) the oldest documented man, having reached 120 years and 137 days. This claim was accepted in 1978 but subsequent additional research has raised doubt as to whether he was wrongly conflated with a brother who died at a young age.

As of May 2006, the oldest verified living person is the 116-years old Maria Esther de Capovilla of Ecuador, born September 14, 1889. The oldest verified living man is Emiliano Mercado del Toro of Puerto Rico, born August 21, 1891.

The following tables list notable oldest people, in various categories. For supercentenarians known for anything other than their extreme age, see the centenarians article.

The existing intro paragraph was taken from a section of the supercentenarian article when this article was split off about 3 months ago.

My reasons for changing are:

• To make it clear that the article not just a list of older people, but is about the study of older people, and the historical context of that study.
• To make the existing summary info simpler to digest by removing some facts which are on the detail pages, such as where Jeanne Calment is said to have met Van Gogh, that Jeanne Calment was 111 on the date that Izumi died.
• To make it clear that the Jeann Calment/Van Gogh meeting is questioned by some and not a confirmed fact.
• To simplify the 4 different dates given in the Izumi paragraph.
• To allow the bolding of article name in the article opening paragraph
• To expalin that Shigechiyo Izumi is included in the pargraph because he is the oldest ever-lived man, according to Guinness
• To explain that his record is now doubted because standards of documentation are higher than they were at that time

-- Rye1967 21:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, version 3 looks better. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then there is no further dispute, so I am applying it to the article.--Rye1967 01:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oldest living males

I added Henry Allingham to the list on the occassion of his 110th birthday, but removed Chojo Fukuhara. A google search of his name reveals only three wikipedia mirrors, and www.grg.org does not list him on their lists of supercentenarians. [1]. If anyone can prove that he exists/is still alive, please re-add him. Canadian Paul 21:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As noted, this is not a make-believe case. Please contact me for more information.

Also, I think the Henry Allingham case has received more media attention than due. Who knows who is the oldest woman in the UK currently? Did you know there are 9 women in the UK older than Mr Allingham. Can you name them. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 15:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Might I add that I respect Henry Allingham as a WWI veteran. However, that's what the 'Surviving Veterans of WWI' page is for...all veterans are listed there, even if not the 'oldest'. Mr Allingham's age at barely 110 is still a 'rookie' and when all the data is on, he's probably not in the top 100 in the world yet (including women).→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 15:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm convinced enough certainly. If anyone else has their doubts, they can contact you for more details. Canadian Paul 16:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Section order

Could we order the sections here as on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Standard_headings_and_ordering and include only links not listed before as per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also? Are there a specific reasons not to do so? -- User:Docu

Docu, A few issues to resolve:

1. What do you want to change?

2. Why? Is the 'format' more important than the information? I think not.

Consider that the tables are in a logical sequence. What would people want to know first? Historic 'oldest people' is most likely, so its first. Women tend to outlive men, so the women are listed first. It makes sense.

To go back and change articles for the sake of some 'manual of style' is silly. Whose manual of style? Is it 'capitalization' or 'capitalisation'? Chicago style, APA style? Give me a break. The bottom line is, the article is fine the way it is now and doesn't need alteration to fit some parochial version of conformity.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 23:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

When I first placed the "References" at the end of the page on the article this article came from ([2]), I added it as the last section because there wasn't an external links section back then. As there is one here, I'd just like to correct the order of sections. It's not APA or Chicago, but Wikipedia style (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Standard_headings_and_ordering). As this article is still missing a notes section, both ways suggested there give the same solution (which happens to be the one I tried to implement). Please excuse that I didn't add any additional references to add to the page yet, I should take some time and get it done one day.

According to Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, another change to be made is to fix to clean it up to provide "[.] an additional bulleted list, as a navigational aid to other related articles in the Wikipedia that have not been linked from free links in the text.". The bold print is in the original. -- User:Docu

Top 10 or 110+

In the discussion of 'top 10' or 110+, the original intent was to have a 'top 10' list, but at one point there were only 9 living cases 110+. So, that's where the headline came from. I guess it could be argued to include all living male cases 110+, but that's not the point. Moreover, it's not fair to the females...do we list all the females 110+? In fact, we instead have 'top 10 oldest persons' including two males. So, men already get a break, being listed both ways, and getting to be included if far younger. We still have women from 1893 not listed yet. So, I think it's more than fair to just do a 'top 10 males' list.

Also, about the UK comment...one would think that an article on Henry Allingham, plus a separate listing under living WWI veterans would be enough. Trying to make Henry fit the table instead of vice versa is putting the cart before the horse. If he lives long enough, he'll make the table naturally. What, do you think the UK is 'crippled' and needs a 'crutch' (affirmative action standards) to be included? You don't think Mr Allingham can compete with the rest of the world? Think about it. Finally, one would hope that people would be a little less self-centered and parochial, and try to learn about other people around the world instead of just those in their area. Finally, you don't know if Mr Allingham is really next in line or not, do you? Another male might be born between the current #10 and Mr Allingham. Think about it.

P.S.: the issue with me is not really the UK per se, but things being blown out of proportion. Again, there are 9 women in the UK older than Mr Allingham (including Emmeline Brice, 111; Nellie Fields, 111; Annie Knight, 111). I think it is regretttable that women are once again related to second-class citizens...being ignored while the 'alpha males' are placed front and center, breaking the rules to get there. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings,

What about the oldest living Russian Orthodox priest, born Dec 19 1896? There's also George Francis, born June 6 1896...the 'oldest man' list has still more cases out there...→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the validation to put them on the list, I know... Robert, do you have a contact for the Russian priest or for George Francis, i.e. is there some hope that these cases will be validated? I want a top 10, and not a 110+, but does someone know who the next men are after Aimé Avignon? The gap between him and the next two men I know of (Scarrabelotti from Australia and Arvonen from Finland - both born 04.08.1897) is too big to believe that there isn't anybody to fill it. Or what do you think? Should someone ask on the "WorldOldestPeople" mailing list? Statistician 12.02.2007 17:07 (CET)

USA labeling

Greetings,

It should be noted that the United States is ONE country, not 50 separate entities. It's one thing to label states, but the 'USA' label SHOULD be included. To not do so promotes a false view that Tennesee, for example, is a separate nation. It also divides the USA cases up so as to make the USA appear less substantial. If we can do Miyazaki, Japan why not Tennessee, USA? → R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Will people like DOCU stop vandalizing the links?

There is NO reason to delete the links to articles like 'supercentenarians' and 'centenarians' while inserting silly links to inanimate objects like 'oldest companies'. For someone supposedly responsible, these edits are a waste of time and childish. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 09:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)