Talk:Oldest people/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 19

Article content in talk page

Removed a big swath of the article that apparenly had been copy-pasted into the talk page. Only guessing at the goal, but Help:Page history can be used to view older versions of the article, so there's no need to stamp in a particular version. Wikipedia:Sandbox can be used to test out Wikipedia, if the goal was to test out some edits to the article. Good fun! Cander0000 (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a good thing to remove the text, it was actually Jerrysmith23 making a semi-protected request. But doing it with 13 edits makes me grumpy :-) I provided a diff above for Jerrysmith23 above. --Commander Keane (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Suleiman Youssef

This man lives in Hasaka, Syria. He was born in , married 4 times and has 210 grandchildren. Currently he is 115 years old. He was the first to inhabit a village called Tal El Shaeir in Hasaka province. He fought the French as they entered his village in 1920. Here is a recent news link which has a photo for the man. http://sana.sy/eng/21/2010/08/24/304515.htm?src=aya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.63.2 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This should reside on the longevity claims page. I didn't see him listed, but there are a lot of people on the list.Canada Jack (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Notwithstanding that the fact is abundantly clear on the Puerto Rico article page, I have made an inquiry at the Puerto Rico WikiProject for a definitive source and ruling. Ma^t_chups 03:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What fact is abundantly clear? Canada Jack (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What's abundantly clear is that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Puerto Rico is "NOT" part of the United States:

Puerto Rico is an "unincorporated territory" of the United States which according to the U.S. Supreme Court's Insular Cases is "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States."Ryoung122 17:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is clear to me from that page that Puerto Rico is part of the United States in any normal sense of the word, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's legal interpretation, and most importantly for purposes of this article, that citizens of PR are citizens of the US (sorry for not being equally clear myself, I was posting right after four reverts on the subject). However, the discussion at the talk page is convincing that for unofficial purposes of national identity (such as athletic competition), PR is treated as if it were a separate country, and it seems clear that we should follow that style here and identify Puerto Ricans as such, where applicable. Ma^t_chups 04:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Meir David Faure

I found this: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/055/931.html It's in hebrew, it says about a person living in Israel who is 115 yrs old. Guiness didn't verify it, though. You can use Google translator. 132.68.245.214 (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

He is listed at Longevity_claims#Incomplete_claims, pending further information from Guinness or the Gerontology Research Group. Ma^t_chups 04:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Lu Zijian

Hello,

Please observe the following quotation: "Lu Zijian, 115, is a living example of how the mastery of internal martial arts can bring a long and healthy life, at 114; Lu is still very healthy and practices everyday Baguazhang. According to official sources such as “Sports Publications of China”, Lu Zijian was born in 1893, Yichang, a city at the border of Yangtze River. His family was already well known in martial arts and Chinese Traditional Medicine circles. His grandfather was a high rank military official and was sentenced to death for having released the troops of a rebellious general who was attempting to invade the Province of Sichuan.

The father of Lu Zijian was a bodyguard and used to escort various expeditions as many martial arts experts along the Yangtze River. Lu started martial art at the early age of 7. When he was 20, he decided to left his native city for Wudang mountain, to learn internal styles from a Taoist monk of the Zixiao Temple (Xu Benshan) and later he spent also eight years in the Emei mountains of Sichuan County." -http://combatbaguazhang.com/LuZijian.html

By deducting the year of his birth from the current year, we arrive at a current age of 117 which is definitely reason to put this man in the chart of oldest living men at this time. Other references to confirm his age can be found all over the internet. Here are some other examples:

- http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-9-9/59524.html - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity_claims - http://luzijian.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Square 41 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OTHER REFERENCES ON THE INTERNET ARE NOT ENOUGH! His age needs to be verified by an international body specialising in the validation of such age claims, such as the GRG. Internet reports are not sufficient evidence of proof of age. Neither is the apparent ability to remember historic events evidence of his age. Brendan (talk, contribs) 03:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 41.240.88.229, 22 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} HI My name is Candice Olivier my Great Gran is 107 Years old today and is still alive. We live in South Africa. Could she be the oldest in SA? I see the other lady has passed away at 111years old. my email address is cands0026@gmail.com 41.240.88.229 (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Supercentenarians who died before 1955

I went ahead and removed this section. In my opinion, this section isn't meant for people who set records (e.g. oldest in country, or world etc.), it is simply just cases prior to the "birth" of Guinness World Records. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Did it ever cross your mind that flushing all that data without seeking consensus might not be a wise decision? In fact, it's rather rash. It needs to be restored.Flash Prescott (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please seek consensus first before making such a dramatic change... Brendan (talk, contribs) 03:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Jan Goossenaerts

I'm confused. If we knew he was 109, surely we should know he is now 110. jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 21:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The practice of this project is to include only people who have been verified by certain agencies as being 110. I wonder if this is in conflict with the overall policy of Wikipedia. In any event, the comment of the editor who removed Jan Goossenaerts was out of place. I see that he is already listed on the "unverified claims" section of List of living supercentenarians. In the mean time, you could create a page for him, as the reference you provided appears to be a reliable source. Ma^t_chups 03:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My comment was not out of place. Number one, the person who added him not only did not wait for his name to appear on the GRG's or Epstein's list. Even worse, the person cited a random article (reliability not established) that came when he was 109! We need confirmation that he did actually reach 110! Same with the unverified claimants on List of living supercentenarians. Brendan (talk, contribs) 01:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to YELL

No need to YELL in the edit summaries.Cander0000 (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Rename

Greetings,

This article originally was the article supercentenarian, before it was forked out a few years ago. Part of that was because some of the world's oldest person titleholders before 1970 were below age 110...thus, not supercentenarians, but still "oldest persons."

I didn't create the name, and I think the name is a bit problematic, but I don't see a good alternative.

This article is not a place for a single list, but a set of lists, as well as an introduction to the topic.

Thus, if someone else has a good idea for a rename, that is something to be considered. Personally I'd like to get the word "verified" into the name. However, List of verified oldest people is more a single, top-100 list.

One suggestion is that we could rename the List of verified oldest people to something like list of the 100 verified oldest people.

This article, however, includes many lists, some dynamic, some not so dynamic, and I see no need to "merge" this article, the "trunk" article, into a branch article. The other list was branched off of this page, in part, so this page wouldn't be so long. A lot of these lists give facts that are similar in some ways, but different in others. For example, it's generally agreed that, statistically, more people are turning 110 now than in in 1950 or 1900, so change over time makes a difference. It also seems that people are living longer now than in the past (for example, the record of 113 years 214 days set in 1928 stood for decades, but today it wouldn't be enough to be more than 8th-oldest). Also, 90% of supercentenarians are female, so there's a need for a gender division the same way that there's a need for womens' marathon results separate from mens' marathon results. There's also the issue of whether nationality or geographic location is associated with longevity, and where the data sources are coming from. So lists of national records give the reader a good idea of what nations are covered and can quickly ascertain, for example, that the record for smaller nations (112 for Belgium) tends to be less than that of larger nations (119 for the USA). Thus, sample population size is important as well. All this is well-summarized in one place here, with branch articles offering finer levels of detail for those readers that want a little more information than just the big picture.

But it makes sense to have a "big picture" article right here, regardless of the name.

Ryoung122 03:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Li Ching-Yuen

Why isn't there any mention of Li Ching-Yuen in this article? He was way before any forms of verification, so I can see why he may not make the list, but I can't find a mention of him - surely he should be included! Cybersteel8 (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

He is one of many claims of extreme age beyond the accept record of 122 years. He not only has his own page (as you indicate), his claim is on the longevity myths page, along with many other claims considered not true. Canada Jack (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Females

Is there any reason at all why there is an "Oldest Men in history" but no "Oldest women in history"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Holmes II (talk • contribs) 05:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes--nearly all of the Oldest are women, so a list of women only would be mostly redundant. Ma^t_chups 13:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No--Sounds like a copout remark. Perhaps an addendum should be added so that the top ten women are included without adding an entire new list? Or tables made for the women also? Seems only fair, even if redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.168.113 (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes--Nobody wants to read duplicated information. Political correctness (in the form of the 'copout' comment) should not take precedence over fact.

Poland, Hungary, Romania, etc.

The current practice is inconsistent. You want to list Rosa Rein as born in Poland but she never lived there when it was Poland. When she was born and lived there it was part of the German Empire. But Elizabeth Stefan is listed as born in Hungary and her place of birth is today in Romania. Maria Mika was born in today Czech Republic, btw. --Statistician (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you should report Venere Pizzinato born in Austria, Anne Primout in France, Consuelo Moreno in Spain etc. We have to use just one criterion in the same table, not two criteria case by case. Anyway the table is abour recordholders of current countries. Ok, you're right about Mika and Stefan.--Pascar (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's why I really think we should list them by country of death, rather than by country of birth. We are talking about people who were born at least 110 years ago. At that time it was a completely different world. Luckily we do not have much data from Africa. Think of Africa in the 19th century... Fbarioli (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, lists by country of death (country where they were doyens) should be better.--Pascar (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I also think that a list of country of death would be easier. Sometime ago we had this list and a list for oldest immigrant counted by the place where they where born (status of nation when they where born). I don't know why this was changed.
Btw.: It's a different if we look at historical nations and and compare areas of different structures. Austria-Hungary had separate areas such as Bohemia, which founded after the dissolution of the monarchy with other areas new countries, while in others areas were simply annexed (eg Poland lost its eastern areas after World War 2). Btw. [2]: Leopold Vietoris (110y/309d, 04.06.1891-09.04.2002) is the oldest person porn in today austria. --Statistician (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The first column needs to be titled "Country of death". Emigrants/Immigrants need notes under the section saying where they were born (and what place their birth place was).

And where did this person named Uktam Karimov come from? He isn't on Epstein's list, and I couldn't locate him on the GRG. Is he on International Database on Longevity. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Addendum

Maybe this was discussed already in the past, but I was wondering if we really need to have an Addendum for each list. I may be wrong, but as far as I remember, disputed cases are claims accepted as true, for which a subsequent research raised some doubts. Until there is evidence that a previously accepted claim is false, though, the claim should be accepted as true, that is, no Addendum is due. Thus, having an Addendum seems to me a way to 'partially remove' claims that GRG and the others still accept, and this may not be within Wikipedia policies. I would appreciate some discussion on this issue. Thanks for your comments. Fbarioli (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that a disputed definition should be accepted as true. If the dispute results from research by a reputable body, the entry is no longer undisputed and therefore should not be presented as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.1.212.22 (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

115 years old woman died in Greece

Do we need to add this here? I can help with translation. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable. Where are the documents? "A supercentenarian is considered verified if his or her age has been verified by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research." Brendan (talk, contribs) 08:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you can give a translation we might be able to find something. Do you know if there are records from the Greek government or some other body? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, her name was Angeliki Vourna (Greek: Αγγελική Βουρνά), she was from Filia (Φίλια) village in Messenia. She had 38 grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren. This newspaper mentions she had 9 children of which 6 are still alive, amongst them her two daughters 75 and 80 years old with whom she lived together. The rest are some info about how her life was and how she used to work till the end and so on. I'm sorry but nothing like official records or alike... A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So she would be 35 at the birth of her oldest daughter. This is possible but looks a little bit high for the first child. Do you want to help validating and debunking SC-claimes from Greece? Then you can send me an email (you can find my adress under No. 9): http://www.grg.org/correspondents.html --Statistician (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that would be interesting. However sources don't mention that her 80 year old daughter was her first child, only that she lived with them two.I will mail you. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Shigechiyo Izumi

I feel that Mr. Izumi should be removed from the authenticated list. Keeping him on this list is disingenuous, to say the least. Even Guinness, in their 2011 GBOWR, has significantly backed-off their previous position on this claim (although they stop just short of renouncing it). Adding Mr. Izumi to a disputed list, and including a note following the current authenticated list is fine. The time has come to make the change; it only adds to the overall credibility of the verified & authenticated list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottnokes (talk • contribs) 19:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Shigechiyo Izumi(120 years,237 days,June 29,1865-February 21,1986) appeared as oldest living person in the 1979 edition of Guinness and oldest person ever every year from 1980 to 1996,and usually thereafter as oldest man ever.However,his Guinness authentication has been largely discounted by scholars (including the one who brought him to their attention) despite Japanese authorities continuing to assert his authenticity.In the 2011 edition his recognition was effectively retracted." http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html

i think that guinness book is very unreliable becasue theres a credible person in the usa that would go on the list but wont becasue guinness does not think there credible so guinness included a non-credible and did not include a credible and its very unreliable source for the oldest people. for instance the person here in the usa there rejecting is a person that lives near me in cleveland only 40 miles away and the us census burau and social security administation state that she diffinatly is her age of her age of 118 years old but her not having a valid birth certificate is the product of racisim she faced when she lived in the old country down in the southern US. so Guiness is agreed guiness is a unrelible source to find the oldest people but its good to get a general idea of people living to extreme age. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

New list: http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html#3 Statistician (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If he is to be deleted from the list there should be a note about him somewhere otherwise users will keep asking where he is if not just going ahead and adding him back in. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to have a discussion on this. It seems clear that his claim has been dismissed by the authorities who once verified his claim. He should therefore be taken off the lists he currently heads. And that should be done sooner, not later.

I have a suggestion here - we could have a small list of now-dismissed claims, which would have Izumi, Joubert, etc. Canada Jack (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Canada Jack, that is far too sensible for WP folks. They'd rather delete the entries - repeatedly! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree to delete him ASAP, if the reference Statistician gave above is considered reliable. We may add him as a dismissed claim for some time, until people get used to him not being on the list. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Same here. If there is no longer any official source that accepts his claim, we should remove his name and, yes, there should be a mention about him, or other dismissed claims. After all, he deserves that: he fooled us for about 30 years! ;-) Fbarioli (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So why the removal hasn't been done already?Japf (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

He has now been removed, but there is no mention of him anywhere in the article at all now; not even in a footnote. This isn't right; as DerbyCountyinNZ says above, people will only keep asking why he's not here if the retraction of his recognition is not explained somewhere.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put a hidden note in for editors to see. If you don't know about it <!--- insert text of hidden note here ---> is a great tool. David in DC (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:ELNO

I have deleted a footnote and replaced it with a citation request. Louis Epstein's Oldest Human Beings list cannot be used as a footnote. It is not a reliable source. It's hosted on a page that, at the very top, disclaims its own accuracy --- and then advertises books --- before the lists even start.

I have deleted an external link to the same list per WP:ELNO #2 and #5. As noted above, the page disclaims its own accuracy (ELNO #2, for those of you keeping score at home) and advertises books (ELNO #5) before the lists even start.

I have deleted an external link to a Yahoo! group, per WP:ELNO #10, which specifically bars Yahoo! groups as external links.

If an editor disagrees with any of these deletions, please respond here rather than starting the customary revert/edit-warring, or please start a thread at WP:RSN, for a reality check from uninvolved editors who deal with WP:RS issues frequently.

These deletions present my fellow WOP WikiProject members with an opportunity to display lessons learned from the encouragement we are receiving from ArbCom that the project needs guidance from uninvolved, experienced editors, in order to bring the project up to at least minimal compliance with the norms, policies and guidelines that authorize WikiProjects. David in DC (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Be free to destroy the articles in the way you think better. I once believed that wikipedia was a source of knowledge. Now, I have realised that's the playground of unoccupied and dumb teenagers.Japf (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. I am not a teenager. David in DC (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Debunked/disproven claims section?

Is there a list somewhere on Wikipedia of longevity claims that have been disproven? If not, perhaps there should be. Of course I'm talking about claims appearing in reputable (non tabloid) media, like say Guinness or the Associated Press. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Post-Japan earthquake/tsunami

After the disaster in Japan, should wikipedia suspend the three oldest-living people living in that country until confirmation that they still are alive? Richard.Mercer (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should leave it alone. One never knows for sure that someone is alive, and at their age, they are ten times more likely to die of natural causes than from the tsunami. Ma^t_chups 01:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Per WP:BLP and WP:crystal, we do not create original research that implies they may have died without any evidence. Yes, a lot of people have sadly died, but it is only a very small percentage of the entire Japanese population. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Lanier 119 on March 23

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/local-woman-celebrates-119th-birthday-family-hopes-she-can-make-guinness-book-of-world-records —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.131.177.17 (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

One interesting phenomena with these unverified claims which berate Guinness and others for "denying" their claims is that they almost always ignore all the other unverified claims, focussing only on the oldest verified person. If we were to accept Lanier's claim, then we should also accept the OTHER unverified claims, which would mean she isn't even in the top 20 of (claimed) oldest living people! Of course, this inconvenient fact always goes unmentioned by advocates for a particular claimant... Canada Jack (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes... and in this particular case, Guinness did check the claim and determined Rebecca Lanier turned 106 this year. (I nearly wrote "only 106" -- but "only" seems really inappropriate for someone that old.) Perhaps everyone can be satisfied with the woman being alive and simply really, really, really old. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

she is the age that she claims both the census bureau and the social sucurity administation agee on her age of birth. all she needs to do is go to the DMV and get a new birth certificate shes on file in the national computer and then she will have a birth certificate stating her age. i once had a lost birth certificate and had to go and get a new one after my old certificate of live birth was lost when my wallet was lost when it was locked up in a foot locker in the us navy and i lost the key to it and was being discharged. no she needs to just go to the DMV and get a new birth certificate i mean she has grand children that are 60 or more years old. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, census data reveals she is 106 years old, not 119. Which is why we rely on contemporary documentation. The DMV is not the place to get a birth certificate, btw. Driver's licences are non-contemporary sources for info like date of birth. Canada Jack (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Country of Death vs. Place of Death (or residence)

I'm looking for a consensus on uniformity. While doing my flag and overlink editing, I've noticed a few inconsistencies.

• Some tables say "Place of death", some say "Country of death"
• Puerto Rico appears in a "Country of death" column. For the moment, I've rendered that one "[[Puerto Rico], United States". But that's unsatisfying. It makes me think we should go with the direct translation of situs mortis: "Place of death".
• Under "Country of death" there are some listed as "Living in XXXX". That's anomalous. In such tables, perhaps the heading ought to be "Place of death or current residence".
• Only one table includes cities. The rest use only countries or territories. Is consistency in this important?

What say ye? David in DC (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the last table on "Territorial recordholders" should be combined in some way with the previuos one (national recordholders). There is no point on having a separate ranking for the category "territories".

Also the column "Lifespan" in the chronological lists is somehow cluttered and not nice-looking, and the date of death is repeated twice in each row (redundancy?).Fbarioli (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Juana Bautista de la Candelaria (Cuban, 126 yr. old)

Found this link on a very important Argentinian newspaper (link in spanish): [1]. Juana Bautista de la Candelaria was born on February the 2nd, 1885 in Cuba and is still living (you can see her ID on the picture). Don't want to edit the article directly since it's locked (must be for some reason). Anyone mantaining this article wanna add her to the list? 170.252.248.205 (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an unverified claim, and she is already on the page Longevity_claims#Cases_with_complete_date_of_birth where many of these claims reside. As you can see, there are numerous other claims of people alive born before her, both with a date of birth and without. Canada Jack (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

135 years old

what about this? shouldnt we assume this as reliable sourceDixtosa (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Oldest living Person in Mexico (F) 113 years old

http://excelsior.com.mx/index.php?m=nota&id_nota=747367 - (Spanish) Maximina Lucio Paredes b. June 24 1898 (updated june 24/2011)

Someone please be so kind to update the "oldest living person by nation" list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaddar (talk • contribs) 02:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Irfan1234, 4 July 2011

In the oldest people ever, can you please add Sahan Dosova? She was born at 27 March 1879 and her death is at 9 May 2009. So you move Maggie bernes to no. 11 but Sahan Dosova to no.1. So Jeanne Calment turns into no.2 and so on.

Irfan1234 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Dosova's claim is on the Longevity Claims page. In terms of recent claims, she would rank third. Curious how those who say their claimant is "world's oldest ever" compared to the accepted claimant (Calment), ALWAYS ignore the OTHERS who claim to be older. Canada Jack (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles

after february 1st frank buckles will be mentioned in this article after he turns 110 and is part of the men over 110 list that is on this artical. this man is the last surviving world war 1 veteran. 69.208.10.149 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

today is frank Buckles birthday he is 110 years old as of today. somebody please add him to the list of men over the age of 110. 99.164.52.118 (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

what about Józef Kowalski? he turned 110 last year and is alive 24.93.141.190 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Buckles passed away before recognition. I really see a flaw in the process here. These people are, after all, on borrowed time. I do not know what was lacking in his documentation, but the delay was inexcusable. I hope things can be expedited in the future. This was the end of an era. I wish things could have been handled differently. 216.134.51.164 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Flash Prescott

I don't see any impediment to having a family or associates gather the various sources for their claim well before the person in question turns 110. In some cases, a person is validated almost instantly as those documents have already been gathered and forwarded to those who assess the claims. The sort of documentation needed is no mystery. I'm kinda surprised that Mr Buckles' associates didn't do that - especially given the publicity that his associates promoted on Mr Buckles. It's not a particularliy complicated process, if the documentation exists. That being said, he DID make the list here, just on the unverified side. Canada Jack (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Shige Hirooka

Who said that she is dead? Verify the sources before editting the article. --Vesailok (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I see. The sources exist. --Vesailok (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

New Oldest Woman Discovered - Maria Lucimar Pereira

Maria Lucimar Pereira is a confirmed 120 year old woman in Brazil

• http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/08/worlds-oldest-person-found-thriving-in-the-amazon.php
• http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/7635

--76.168.209.45 (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Portal for Supercentenarians

I have created a portal, please help build it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Supercentenarians --Leoj83 (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

This article claims that Besse Cooper is the oldest person whose age can be documented, but Maria Lucimar Pereira of Brazil has documentation showing that she was born nearly six years earlier. http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/7635 Owen (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

She is on the List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians page, and is fourth on that list showing recent claims. On the longevity claims page, she ranks 14th for current claims for the living. Her documentation was issued in 1985, so does not form a basis for documentary proof. Canada Jack (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've removed my objection. Although I think the wording could be clearer, because the age of some of these other people can be documented, just not as reliably as that of people whose age was documented from birth. Owen (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent news in India of 120 year old person marrying 60 year old lady

Recently there were news of :- Age has been no bar for 120-year-old Hazi Abdul Noor who married a woman half his age for the second time in Assam's Karimganj district on 30 October 2011 Displaying documents about his age, Noor who was a contractor during the British regime in southern Assam, said though he was 120 years old, his age in the electoral voters list was 116 years. Ref see [2], [3], [4] , [5] Jethwarp (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Name

Was there consensus to change the article's name? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 12:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Why rename this? This isn't just a list --Onewarmslime (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some has a separate list of oldest people not in the world? A list of the people on the space station? Can someone please turn this back? Canada Jack (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume it's a list of the Solar System's Oldest People. There are no old people on the international Space Station and I'm sure we can find sources that state that no people live elsewhere in our solar system. But it's a big galaxy out there, and an even bigger universe. I think it would violate WP:NPOV to assume that no older beings outside our solar system are people. Also WP:CRYSTAL. David in DC (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, now that I've gotten that out of my system, I concur with Jc. I'm aware of no consensus to change this name. I concur with One, too. And, for good measure, I support CJ's request. David in DC (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there is "people" in anywhere but Earth. In context of this article, it means humans. A list for other lifeforms can be created if needed, probably there already is some kind of list about animals in wikipedia. 82.141.74.224 (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Józef Kowalski

Poland 111 yr ,living —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.186.38.239 (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Kowalski

http://www.zachod.pl/2011/02/pan-jozef-kowalski-ma-111-lat/

http://www.prezydent.pl/archiwum/archiwum-aktualnosci/rok-2010/art,17,673,list-z-okazji-110-urodzin-jozefa-kowalskiego.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.180.144.194 (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Manfredini vs Pizzinato

I think there should be a change made to the list "Oldest verified person by nation". Since the records are based on place of birth, as is stated in the title lines above the table, the entry for Italy, "Venere Pizzinato-Papo" should be replaced by "Dina Manfredini". Manfredini, currently second oldest person in the world (today 114 years, 280 days) was born in Italy and clearly older than Pizzinato at her death (114 years, 252 days). Who can change this? MT (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jánosné Szentirmay

She is claimed to be male, but the Hungarian name definitely indicates a woman. János is the husband, and "né" added to it means his wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.7.201 (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 February 2012

Please insert an additional entry in the country's list as follows

Country: Cuba Name: Juana Bautista de la Candelaria Rodriguez Sex: F Birth date: February 2, 1885 Death date: Living Age: 127 years

and cite the article which appeared in the Cuban News Agency website including an interview with the woman and a photograph here: http://www.cubanews.ain.cu/2012/0203Joyful-Cuban.htm as evidence. According to the article "Juana Bautista was born on February 2, 1885, in the hamlet of Santa Rosa, in the neighborhood of Ceiba Hueca Arriba, Granma province, according to Volume I, Page 35, of the municipal Register of Births, Marriages and Deaths, where she was registered on February 27 of that year." This is a document of public record that can be inspected by anyone who cares to visit during office hours.

The entry should be inserted immediately before: France Jeanne Calment F 21 February 1875 4 August 1997 122 years, 164 days

89.101.207.219 (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This is discussed above. Please reach a new consensus before requesting an edit. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Kamato Hongo & Carrie White

Please read all of the previous posts on these two cases and their debunking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurist110 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Li Ching-Yuen

I just confused. Is he was really aged 256 years old?  Dhio - 270599  14:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, he should be on this list. --BookishOwl (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is for verified persons only. Outlandish claims such as this one belong in Longevity myths. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Asterisks

The asterisks after the listings of the age of the present oldest fellow/oldest person convey no meaning. If it means he's still living and increasing in age, the green highlighting already conveys that. (The green will convey the meaning "still alive" whether or not the person ends up with a multiple-year reign and an age of "115-116" or "115-117." There would be no reason to make it "115-116*.") If it means something else, then there should be a key/footnote demonstrating the mysterious meaning of the asterisk. It just appears to be utterly redundant and unnecessary. You're just making readers wonder "Where's the footnote? What does that mean?" Fzbdszeessezd (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A Passing

http://todaynews.today.com/_news/2012/12/17/15972192-worlds-oldest-person-dies-at-115-held-record-only-2-weeks?lite

Dina has passed. Time to update the page again. 208.250.96.20 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Kamato Hongo and Carrie White Have Been Debunked

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/drm/007/index.htm

Michel Poulain essentially debunks the Hongo case here and Robert Young debunks the Carrie White case. The earliest Kamato Hongo could have been born was 1891 (which was too young to be WOP at the time of her death), and Carrie White was almost certainly born in 1888 (which would have meant that she was 13 years younger than Calment at the time of her death, and thus couldn't have been the WOP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.146.236 (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

GRG still lists these two on their title-holder page [6], which was updated this past June. I'd say when they remove the names, we do so too. There was a similar situation with Izumi's case which was considered by many to be debunked, but was not taken off the lists until earlier this year. Canada Jack (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to convince Robert Young to have GWR take back these two cases, but have so far been unsuccessful. However, Robert (who works for GWR and the GRG) himself has said that these two cases have been debunked and that they should be removed from Wikipedia. I can find the link for you to his comments if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.0.231 (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Kamato Hongo & Carrie White ages should be adjusted

I have reviewed the research by Michel Poulain (Kamato Hongo case) and Robert Young (Carrie White case). I agree that the evidence strongly suggests that Kamato Hongo was born no earlier than 1891, and Carrie White was born in 1888. As such, their ages should be adjusted to reflect what is a fair and reasonable extrapolation of what their ages are "most likely" to have been. Continuing to list them on the list of the "verified" oldest, similar to the dubious case of like Shigechiyo Izumi, who has since been removed, is not credible. Scott Nokes 16:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The cases are likely debunked, you are correct, but policy here dictates we remove them AFTER the authorities we cite remove them, not before. As I said above, this is what we did with Izumi. Canada Jack (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.grg.org/Adams/B2.HTM

The GRG has removed these two cases (as well as several other disputed cases) from their official oldest people ever list. Robert Young and CalvinTy (both of whom are GRG correspondents) have said that the table in the link above is the correct and accurate table, as well as the more modern one. Therefore, you have said that these cases will be removed from Wikipedia once the GRG removes them from its official list. Well, the GRG has already removed them from its official list, and now it's time for White, Hongo, Beard, Buitariu (sp?), Thomas Peters, and the other disputed cases to be removed from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.31.187 (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2012

The link is to a new list which excludes cases which are disputed. But other GRG lists are still on the site which list the disputed cases. So, it's not clear that GRG considers the White and Hongo cases as "debunked" as opposed to simply "disputed." Martha Graham, for example, is not listed, though the main issue with her is not whether she lived 114 years, but whether the criteria which was acceptable in 1960 is still acceptable now. I am not aware that there is any new information which has "debunked" her case. That said, hopefully GRG will update some of those other lists. Canada Jack (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert and CalvinTy have both recently said that the new list is the correct list to use for the Wikipedia SC lists. You can join the 110 Club and see what they wrote for yourself. I suppose I can also copy and paste their recent 110 Club statements here. If you see Robert and CalvinTy's statements about this list and these cases being debunked for yourself, would that be sufficient enough proof for you to support removing these two cases from Wikipedia? For the record, I did have conversations with Robert and CalvinTy (both of whom are GRG researchers) on this issue at the 110 Club. As for Graham, I saw that CalvinTy and possibly some other people did some original research which concluded that Graham was likely only around 102 at the time of her death. I think that is why they removed her case. All of this would be much easier if you simply joined the 110 Club. I think you would be welcomed and allowed to post there.--Futurist110 (also known as Futurist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurist110 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You entirely miss the point. I am well aware that these cases are disputed - Indeed, I included the notes on the disputed status for some of these very cases! But the list you linked to was a list which omitted disputed cases. And those disputed cases still exist on other lists maintained by GRG. When those disputed cases are themselves removed from the lists which include disputed cases - i.e., when they are debunked such as the Izumi case last year and removed from the lists - then we can omit them from our lists.

For Izumi, he still exists on some of the older lists from 2007, etc. which GRG maintains but has not updated. But the latest chronological list [7] omits him. When that list was posted, we could take him off here even though it was well known within the gerontology community for years that no one accepted the claim anymore. We go solely by published sources. So we are bound to updating these pages when the sources update their pages. The published sources still have those disputed cases on their lists, it's as simple as that. You perhaps should nudge Robert to take them off that CCCC list - or I could ask him to do so? Canada Jack (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

One more note on this. I believe we are on safe ground when we INFER that someone has been debunked. As with Izumi. With the older lists, he is there, but the latest page omits him and we are on safe ground, since disputed cases are listed therein, to infer that Izumi is no longer simply "disputed," but "debunked." However, we can't infer the same thing from the list linked to which omits disputed cases. Because disputed cases aren't necessarily debunked. Even if, elsewhere such as on the forums mentioned, these cases are considered debunked. It has to be clear from the SOURCE that a case is no longer accepted; so either a claim is explicitly said to be "debunked" or a claim no longer resides on a page which also lists cases in dispute. Canada Jack (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.grg.org/Adams/CCCC.HTM So let me get this straight--if I get Robert or CalvinTy to remove these two cases from the list in the link right above, then you'll agree to have these two cases removed from Wikipedia, right? Futurist110 (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that. If GRG removes them from the list, I'd agree the should be removed from our lists. If this is going to happen, make sure in the edit summary to say something like "as per updated GRG lists, cases debunked" and might not hurt to make a note here as those two have "loved" on the attendant pages for a long time. Canada Jack (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Allright, I'm trying to get these two cases removed from that list right now. However, Robert and CalvinTy said that the GRG no longer updates old lists right now, and thus the new GRG lists should be used. Here's question for you--I'm not trying to be offensive or anything, but why exactly is your opinions in this field superior to those of Robert and CalvinTy, who are experts in this field (they are both Gerontology Research Group members)? Futurist110 (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, since older GRG lists are not being updated, and because it is more likely than not that Kamato Hongo was born no earlier than 1891, and Carrie White was probably born in 1888 - that their records fall short of Wikipedia standards for inclusion on the "Verified" list.

Accordingly, because their cases have become cold (over 3 years without additional documents to verify their ages) both Hongo and White should be removed from the "Verified" list and added to the "Longevity Claims" list. It makes no common sense to have disputed claims on the verified list. Scott Nokes 04:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottnokes (talk • contribs)

Well, I don't pretend to have a superior opinion on whether a particular person has a better claim, I simply am underlining the wikipedia tenet that we go by what the sources say, not what we feel is better information. Indeed, Robert has in the past sought my opinion on various issues in terms of wikipedia. If we go by the criteria of published, reliable sources, then as soon as this is published - i.e., GRG no longer has the claimants on their lists - then we remove them. I'm not sure how we get around that beforehand because they are on the lists! GRG does on occasion published updated lists which omit debunked cases which were on older lists - like with Izumi last year. This "3 years" criteria you have suggested is beside the point. We go by the criteria the sources apply even if they have in the past seemingly grandfathered cases which might not be accepted today. Canada Jack (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that the disputed cases have been removed. However, I don't think you have yet gained consensus for this, Futurist. The only link thus far provided is for a list which specifically excludes disputed cases. This is the list - [8] please advise if there is another list which excludes them. I am rather surprised you have done this given you have cited the same list which, I pointed out in April, does not rise to the level where we'd be compelled to exclude those disputed cases. Since the GRG has lists which includes these disputed cases, we should retain those listings until a) an updated list which includes disputed cases omits those cases we are talking about or b) GRG maintains that disputed cases should not be included and this is published (as opposed to you reporting personal correspondences).

The above being the case, unless there is a new list somewhere which omits these cases, I suggest you re-insert those disputed cases. Canada Jack (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we know who removed the disputed cases? I agree that a consensus has not yet been reached (but getting close). Scott Nokes 00:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottnokes (talk • contribs)

http://www.grg.org/Adams/CCCCC.HTM -- Yep, there is now a new GRG list which omits these disputed cases. Therefore, these cases should stay removed, except Mathew Beard, who should be added back on. Futurist110 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We can now consider White and Hongo debunked for the purposes of wikipedia as the new list omits them. Good work, Futurist. Canada Jack (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hyperlink Besse Cooper in 'Ten verified oldest people living' please

Besse Cooper's wikipedia page hyperlink is missing, somebody add it please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besse_Cooper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmali92 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a person only needs to be hyperlinked once in an article, and Besse Cooper is already hyperlinked near the very top of this article. Futurist110 (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Oldest verified person by nation - Austria

Could someone please update the section "oldest verified people by nation"? The oldest Austrian, Hermine Nistler, died on 13 February 2012. More information: http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM - recent deaths for 2012 --77.118.159.144 (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's now been fixed. Futurist110 (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicolas Savin

what is the story with this guy? is he the oldest person ever? Jean-Baptiste Nicolas Savin (1768–1894) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.96.202 (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

See Nicolas Savin. --Vesailok (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Is he a con-man-charlatan who enjoyed pretending to be someone he was not, in return for pension and fame?69.15.219.71 (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah 99.99% chance that Savin was a fraud. Futurist110 (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding pending cases to chronological lists

This is not justified as their inclusion persumes that such cases will be ratified. Why not just wait until they are verified? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with you about this. Futurist110 (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oldest verified person by nation

Could someone please update the section "oldest verified people by nation"? Dina Manfredini passed Maria de Jesus 5 days ago thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.221.9 (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Already done. :) Futurist110 (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

John Joe Begay

The case of John Joe Begay is not "validatable" at this point. It should not be listed on the list of the Oldest Verified Men.69.15.219.71 (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's already been removed from this article. Futurist110 (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Josphine Marchal

Where did this unsourced original research come from? Someone added this claim to the "World's Oldest Person" list.

20 February 1957 12 April 1957 (51 days) Josephine Marchal F 107 27 April 1849 – 12 April 1957 107 years, 350 days Germany

69.15.219.71 (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrs. Karnebeek

As she was the only 'Oldest person in the World' the Netherlands has ever had, I think the spelling of her name should be correct: Mrs. Karnebeek was born as Christina Backs and after she married Mr. Karnebeek, her name spelled 'Christina Karnebeek-Backs'. The main article is 'semi-protected' so I can't edit myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GJK1966 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable source we can verify that against? —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, when it comes to Dutch (super) centenarians, I am a reliable source ;-). Sorry I forgot to sign my previous message. Anyway, her birth certificate can be found here (bottom left):

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-12459-25777-77?cc=1554394&wc=5811513

The name Christina is easy to find; the name 'Backs' is the last word on the fourth line.

Marriage (she married at 48):

http://www.genlias.nl/nl/searchDetail.jsp?val=1&xtr=10758900&vgr=2

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-12434-640-28?cc=1554394&wc=5812347

Her death (certificate can't be found yet):

http://www.hetutrechtsarchief.nl/collectie/kranten/un/1959/1008

And, of course, the Dutch Wikipedia pages, e.g.:

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_oudste_vrouwen_van_Nederland

By the way: her 'nick name' was Chrissemeuje.

GJK1966 (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 October 2012

habib mianidas is the oldest person of 139 years from india.

117.254.222.39 (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done see WP:RS and WP:BLP. You need a source, especially if this person really is living. gwickwire | Leave a message 19:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Jan Kowalski aproved in Poland

2.02.1900 112y

http://www.prezydent.pl/archiwum/archiwum-aktualnosci/rok-2010/art,17,673,list-z-okazji-110-urodzin-jozefa-kowalskiego.html

http://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-w-wieku-112-lat-odebral-nominacje-na-stopien-kapitana,nId,435544 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.231.111.168 (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This is proof that his age is correct. GRG must not have anyone who can read the language of Poland.

Matthew Beard

As in the other pages about supercentenarians, disputated cases should be all removed...Matthew Beard is not in the list on GRG more and John Ingram McMorran should be in his place...thanks to who can edit this page! --Dakota86x (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Bible

These peoples' life spans are by no means the longest ever!! There are many references of people in the bible of people who lived 900 years! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.216.239 (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read the article before posting comments such as the above. From the first paragraph: "In these tables, a supercentenarian is considered 'verified' if his or her claim has been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) or Guinness World Records." The Bible isn't one of those bodies. Further, if you go to the bottom of the page, you will find numerous sister articles, such as Longevity myths which chronicles the Biblical claims. Eight are listed there at 900+, and there are numerous other longevity traditions listed there. Canada Jack (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Mariam Amash

Mariam Amash, an Arab-Israeli woman died on the 23 December at the age of 124, but her name is nowhere to be seen on the oldest people charts. Should it be added?--Mjs1991 (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Right now, I'm dubious of this claim, and I would suggest that we hold off on adding her, since it would also make her the oldest person ever. Additionally, since it isn't been officially determined, it would be more a pseudo claim than fact this point in time. Is there a page for supposed oldest people, because it might be good to put her there until (and if) it is officially determined. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Territorial recordholders

I will remove Réunion and Guadeloupe from the category "Territorial recordholders" because they are not territorial dependencies of France, they are part of the proper French territory, it's just like listing there the oldest people in the French regions of Alsace or [[Upper Normandy). France is divided into 27 regions, 22 of them are located in Metropolitan France (Continental European France) and 5 are Overseas regions, and all of them have equal status and form the proper territory of France. France has another 8 Overseas territories and collectivities: French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, French Southern and Antarctic Lands, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, New Caledonia and Clipperton Island. Only these 8 Overseas territories and collectivities fit in the category, if any data is available on their oldest verified people, of: "Territorial recordholders" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.153.130 (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Reg Dean

"Reg Dean is not verified yet. We know that he is 110, but we still need to wait for him to get verified" You what? No wonder usership of this beurocratic dinosaur is going downhill. Erath (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

We do know that Reg Dean was 110 years old when he passed away. Futurist110 (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Poland

Polish oldest man is Józef Kowalski born in 1900, not Rosa Rein, she was Swiss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.106.20 (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Jozef Kowalski is unverified. Rosa Rein's birthplace (which was located in the German Empire) is now located in Poland, that's why she's mentioned in Poland. Same thing with Augusta Holtz (1871 - 1986), her birthplace is now located in Poland. 58.165.110.189 (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

He is verified by the government of Poland. but not GRG for some reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.155.86 (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Because the GRG does not always trust countries' verification. Some countries might verify false claims due to national pride. Futurist110 (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Worlds Oldest Person Lives in Kyrgyzstan

Worlds Oldest Person, Bolokbaeva Rakiya was born in 1888 in Kyrgyzstan and she is now 125 years old.You can read an article about her and a video footage and see her passport where its written that she was born in year 1888, and she still lives in great poverty and poor health.Kyrgyz Television has visited her in her home in Ton region, Kyrgyzstan and they also aknowledged that they were informed of her existence and her birth date just yesterday.

Here is the link to the statement and video footage about Bolokbaeva Rakiya: http://ktrk.kg/ky/content/duyno-zhuzunun-en-kary-adamy-kyrgyzstanda-zhashayt-video — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.218.148.35 (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm extremely skeptical that her passport is an early-life document. Even if it is an early-life document, it would not be hers. Futurist110 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

She is only fifth on the list of claims with a date of birth supplied. Canada Jack (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

wrong

According the SOCIAL SECURITY DEATH RECORDS,the oldest person in the world in 1982 and early 1983 was born in 1867 .Just search for death records born 1867 died 1983.you please change your list accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorybridge990 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

latest news.In Romania exist records of a man who died at the age of 148 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.103.57 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

How about some reliable poor for this, please? Futurist110 (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ten longest reigns revert

There is, yet another, one of these disputes pertaining to what constitutes "fan fluff", as one user calls it. I boldly added 2 tables, 1 for oldest person and 1 for oldest man, to show how long each person held the title of oldest living person/man. It was promptly reverted with no discussion. I am totally opposed to 1 person seemingly inexplicably snuffing out someone elses work. I took the data from the above tables of "Chronological list of the verified oldest living person/man" as I was interested in the span of time each person was able to hold on to these significant, albeit usually brief titles. The time they held it was already there, but I was tired of having to do the work myself to see who held it the longest so I made the aforementioned tables. I don't view it as "fan fluff", rather as a small addition of beneficial information that bolsters the overall article at hand. I can see how if you are looking at the minimum bare bones, you might not want it; however that's not the case and I hope others will weigh in here on the specific addition in question and provide some feedback before it is removed. RoadView (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You have as much as admitted this is fan fluff by stating that is "someone elses work". That is an admission that it is WP:OR! Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a newsgroup/messageboard which is where such work belongs. Not only is there no such thing as a "reign" of a longest person but I would be surprised if any reliable source would even acknowledge that the length of time that a person was the oldest person/man/woman was in anyway significant. That there is already such fan fluff in this article is no excuse to add more. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to debate semantics here, but "someone elses work" refers to adding the table taken from the above data; all work can be referred to as "someone elses" unless it's a bot. Anyway, if we must refer to this as "fan fluff" and saying already present "fluff" is not an excuse to add more raises 1 question and 1 statement. If there is in your view, other "fluff", why are you arbitrarily drawing the line here? Which leads me to the statement; if someone sees similar content that has been present for years and adds to it, they will, rightfully so, be stunned to see their contribution immediately challenged and see it labeled as additional "fluff". I admit, I've seen plenty of so called trivia and OR on WP, plenty of which I generally don't have a major problem with, but this is far from problematic or inappropriate, especially with lists. There is a table above that states how long each person held the title for oldest living person/man, it's already there. All that was done, was make it easier to follow as those same lengths of time, that were already there, have been added to a small table, limited to 10, and added the word "reign". I'm sure you've seen much worse and were already content with the size of this article, but I really think this is an acceptable addition and would like to move on. - RoadView (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's complete original research and, moreover, entirely trivial. It's got to go. "Other stuff exists" isn't a reason to add more trivial, unsourced material to this page. Just because there's junk on other pages that shouldn't be there, doesn't mean we should add more here. In fact, please point out where this other fluff is so that we (the community) can work on cleaning that up too. If there were a reliable source that already laid out this information, it would be a different story, but there's not, and unsourced material may be removed at any time. Canadian Paul 22:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

First off, it's not original research to take something that's already in a table above and better present the exact same information. Some users love to label something as original research and demand that it is removed as if it holding back WP, when it this specific example, it enhances it. Why should users be presented with information in a table that has some data that is out of order and not be allowed to be able to simply view it in the correct order (or in this case a top 10 to not overdo it)? That seems like a massively unnecessary burden with an unreasonable demand for citations and references when the data is already above. If you want to challenge the above data, then go ahead. "Chronological list of the verified oldest living person since 1955" is actually sourced from [9], and that page actually does have a column for reign time. "Chronological list of the verified oldest living man since 1962" does not appear to be sourced which could technically be cause for possible removal by exclusionary editors. I'm not saying that other stuff exists so mine should stay, because as I stated, this is at best the weakest and loosest original research imaginable, but moreover I do hate to see things unfairly targeted. A slight digression would be to bring up the US president lists that seem rife with OR, yet they are rarely targeted and plenty are still there. (ie Living Presidents of the United States). Anyway, I think the strongest case against the inclusion is trivia. However, I still think it's so subjective as with all these oldest people lists as to what constitutes trivia and that the reigns table can hardly be seen as last straw and must be removed immediately in my opinion. If editors don't personally find the information useful, they shouldn't attempt to find any reason to get rid of it. RoadView (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the notion that these tables enhance the article. If anything, they clutter it up with superfluous data and distract from the main purpose of the article, which is to summarize information on the "oldest people", not overload readers with every possible interpretation of that information. If you think that the US president lists shouldn't be on Wikipedia, then nominate them for deletion and determine consensus. The consensus right now, however, is to remove these tables from this article. There's no "last straw" here; if I see material that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, I remove it and/or seek consensus to do so. I can't be everywhere at once. If you think that there's other material on these lists that should be removed, again, point my attention to it and I'll take a look. If you want to seek outside commentary and get more input, then I welcome that, I think healthy debate is important for Wikipedia and not getting one's way all the time is a valuable experience for Wikipedians. Canadian Paul 21:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that every interpretation of the data should not be added, but I guess we disagree on the importance of how long they held the title of oldest. It may not be exceedingly useful to all, but I seriously doubt that it's useless clutter that needs to be eliminated. As far as consensus, the sample size is extremely scarce, so I can hardly call this a consensus. As I am still in favor of keeping the data and want additional input before anything happens, I have thought of an idea to throw out there. To satisfy what I want, which is to be able to easily see how long the title was held in order, and to satisfy not adding another table, we could add the reign data to the above tables of "Chronological lists" and restructure them a bit to result in a sortable table. That would seem to satisfy all parties. RoadView (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree (with CanadianPaul). This information is not "exceedingly useful to all", the ONLY people who care about it are few Longevity Fans. It is so minor that it has NEVER (as far as I know) been mentioned anywhere but this article and some fansites (is it even mentioned by the GRG, anywhere?). I seriously doubt the average reader would find this in any way useful. The inclusion of the timespan as oldest (I despise the use of the word "reign" as totally inappropriate) in the chronological list makes lists makes those lists unnecessarily messy, more confusing, to the average reader, than useful. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: A previous discussion on the timespan material in the choronological lists here, appeared to achive a consensus to remove it (although the discussion is somewhat unclear), the main proponent of its retention being Robert Young. Note in particular the opening paragraph which refers to Point 3 on the list here: "3. OMIT the bit of trivia after the table listing who held the title longest, shortest etc.". So the timespan of a person being the oldest was only inserted into the chronological lists after it was removed, by consensus, as a separate list, and the apparent consensus to remove it entirely was not carried out. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As I stated before, the reign time column (and additional) are on the GRG citation here. [10] I still disagree about clutter and usefulness. It is interesting to look at the discussion from over 3 years ago about almost the exact same thing. But, just because 1 or 2 people view it as not beneficial, it's still hardly enough to think this discussion is over. I would like to open this up to a wider audience to get somewhat of a more complete analysis. As far as the claim that adding the data, which is already there, to the above "Chronological lists" would make it messy and confusing, again I disagree because I can't speak for the readers and just automatically assume they would view it as a liability. Personally, I think the "Age(s) when oldest" column is rather unnecessary, but something like that seems to not be clutter at all for you. This all really comes down to personal preference and the subjectivity of triviality. I always wished those tables were sortable to be able to better serve the needs of all readers who may want certain information. As far as the word "reign" goes, it could be changed to something better if you want, even though they use the term on GRG. As I've said, this data is already there, just out of order. It was frustrating not being able to sort it or to see any mention of who held the title the longest, which seemed curiously absent on an article about the oldest people. Obviously the solution on my end was to either slightly redesign and add it to the "Chronological" table or add a small new table below. I suspect others would not be outraged at it's presence and have a hard time imagining that they would celebrate it's omission as a reduction in clutter. RoadView (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to create a new article Chronological list of the oldest people where all the "clutter" would be less intrusive. The lists here could be reduced to the 10 most recent titleholders with only the start and end dates (and maybe date of birth) and age at death. All other information would be contained in the new article which would be linked from here. Any reader wanting more information than is contained in this article could just follow the link, exactly the same as they do currently for the oldest people and oldest living people. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess I can go with that idea. I assume on the new page you are talking about having a sortable table that includes "reign" time and all the other potential "clutter" as you would still be opposed to any separate table exlusively for reigns? A related question is that the "Chronological" list for the men is still unsourced as far as I can tell, so are you ok with that as it stands or do you see that as unverifiable original research? All else aside, it would still be nice for additional input, but I think the new page should appease everyone. I would personally recommend that on the new page we also include a third chronology that is just for women seeing as it would make it even and help out in (rare) times like this when the oldest women is not the oldest person and is therefore not on a "Chronological" table. RoadView (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still pretty sketchy on the content itself, but I think Derby's suggestion is a good one. You might want to create it in your sandbox first, if you want me to provide a stronger opinion/more valuable commentary, but it's up to you. Mainly I want to see how everything is sourced, that is my concern. Canadian Paul 23:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're curious about the potential sourcing then shouldn't you also be so here? Again, as I said the only source provided is [11] which does NOT include anything about the chronology of the oldest man and actually hasn't been updated since Besse Cooper. Any new page would use the same source and be made largely from the already existing tables. It would have to be either original research for both or for neither, and unless we find and copy a list from somewhere that has this exact information, this is the best we can do. This is what I don't fully understand what and remains unclear about lists all these years even after reading about the policies. As far as OR and verifiability, unless you copy someone elses list/table exactly, the best you can do is source or link to each entry that independently contains pertinent data, then compile the table/list in the manner desired. For example, Dina Manfredini succeeded Besse Cooper as the oldest person, yet the sourcing doesn't directly verify that, but if we click on Dina Manfredini, we can see that her page is sourced and is raises no objection for being listed after Cooper. That is my understanding on how lists work and without that little bit of leeway, many tables, including most on this article would not be allowed. RoadView (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that the longest reins part should be kept. The "longest 'reigns'" is useful...it refutes the perception that these titleholders are just an "event". Or ephemeral time at the top. Second, statistically, we can see from the "longest reign" data that reigns of over a year are actually quite common. Third...you can show that words like "reign" are used by the media (if I remember correctly, "Queen Jeanne" for Calment was a common moniker). We even see these people "crowned" with tiaras in many cases. Thus, it's not original research to reflect what's already out there in the media. Secondly, it appears that DerbyNZ is violating the Wikipedia policy of WP:OWN. Two people does not make a consensus. I think that some neutral editors should be brought in here. Finally, the GRG's latest table (http://www.grg.org/Adams/CCCCC.HTM) shows that the GRG does keep track of the amount of days that someone held the WOP title. Futurist110 (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not the GRG, a fact which too many regular editors of Longevity articles seem to have trouble appreciating. GRG is merely a source, and what it finds useful or important is not necessarily useful or appropriate wikipedia. There is no WP:OWN here, I have had virtually no input into the content of this article for years, partly because there was too much fanfluff and partly because all the useful info is contained in other articles. However I recalled that there was discussion on whether the "longest reign" material should be included and looking back through the archive found that on 3 occasions the consensus, by considerably more than 2 editors, was that it should not be included. By all means get the opinion of some neutral editors, if they are genuinely "neutral". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• TLDR above for me, sorry, but if I've understood the issue correctly, is not the obvious solution to put the length of "reign" in the main table and have the table sortable on that column? 86.128.0.95 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Only by making the tables even messier than they already are. Also I suspect that it may not work properly, but someone would have to try it to check. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are willing to put the reign length for each WOP and WOM in the main tables, I guess that I would be willing to support such a move. Futurist110 (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 April 2013

Run Run Shaw, the movie mogul in Hong Kong, is 105 years old, verified by numerous web pages using his name as a search term. Please included Run Run Shaw in the list of oldest living males. <!end request--> 173.68.157.81 (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)User:yangguei

Jiroemon Kimura who had his 116th birthday on the 19th april 2013, MUST NOW LIVE ANOTHER 176 DAYS TO BREAK THE ALL TIME UNDISPUTED JAPANESE MALE AND FEMALE MAXLIFESPAN AND TO LIVE UNTIL THE 12th OCTOBER 2013 IN ORDER TO SURPASS Mrs.TANE IKAIWHO DIED WIRH 116 YEARS AND 175 DAYS..... Maxlifespan (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, let's see Kimura actually do this first. Actually doing this might be a huge challenge for Kimura due to his bad condition on his official 116th birthday. Futurist110 (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

On the table for the chronological list of the verified oldest living person since 1955, one of the columns says age when oldest. why can't it just say age of death? i mean everyone gets the meaning but it just looks stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.126.102.146 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Title of Article

Wouldn't the title of this article be more acurately described as "Oldest People Born Since the Late Nineteenth Century"? Since that's all that are included, and apparently Wikipedia's bosses don't consider any literary or other recorded evidence or authorities from before the late 1800's to be "reliable" or "verifiable".Wasp14 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to miss the subtle distinction here - it's not what "wikipedia's bosses" consider to be a reliable claim per se, it's what wikipedia considers to be a reliable arbitrator on the subject in question. In this case, GRG. The GRG has criteria in terms of verifiabilty, you would be better served in addressing your complaints to them as they determine what constitutes a reliably verified claim. Canada Jack (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Nah, it's more like the not so subtle, distinct smell of BS on Wikipedia.Wasp14 (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no. Perhaps you should get a bit better acquainted with wikipedia and what is considered by it to be a "reliable source" or "verifiable" before making ill-informed comments. On this subject the reliable source cited is GRG as they are recognized internationally and by such organizations as Guinness World Records as being the chief arbiters on this subject, a subject more prone to fraud and deception than most others. For example, there are claims that an alleged Polish WWI veteran, Józef Kowalski, is the world's oldest man, despite the refusal of his relatives to provide any documentation to verify the claim. The GRG doesn't say that unverified claims are false, just that without verification, we can't be certain of the veracity of a particular claim. The practical result is that regions with poor record-keeping won't have many claims which can be verified. Once universal birth registration started in the mid-1800s in many places, claims for extreme ages started to fall off dramatically. Further, census research showed a tendency for elderly people to report themselves aging faster than the years passing between censuses. Which is part of the reason age claims can't be accepted on face value. In the case of Kowalski, where the documentation is said to exist, but requires family approval to access, the fact that his family is blocking access to people like GRG raises a lot of red flags. Canada Jack (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And, without setting the bar somewhere, we'd have to include Methuselah and similar characters, who apparently lived about 3-9 times longer than the more verifiable people. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the article title is kind of misleading... The title, Oldest people, is generally broad in scope. Even the List of best-selling albums, contains albums that were not tracked by Nielsen Soundscan through other sources. May I suggest renaming it into something similar to Best-selling albums in the United States since Nielsen SoundScan tracking began, perhaps? Because we might have to include Methuselah, et al. Chihciboy (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Citations

Remove the citation on Jiroemon Kimura because he is dead under "Oldest people ever." Add the citation for Yoshino Tanaka and Maria Gravigi-De Candia under "Ten verified oldest people living." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.153.228 (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD SYLVESTER MCGEE. OLDEST LIVING AMERICAN SLAVE RECOGNIZED BY PRESIDENT NIXON, AND LYNDON B. JOHNSON. HE DIED AT AGE 130... IN 1970. THIS IS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

James McCoubrey Has Already Passed Away

James McCoubrey has already died on July 5, 2013. Source: http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM ("Newfoundland U.S. (CA) James McCoubrey Sept. 13, 1901 July 5, 2013 111 295 W M L. Stephen Coles Dec. 29, 2011 Feb. 2, 2012 Y"). These tables and Mr. McCoubrey's article need to be changed to reflect this unfortunate event. Futurist110 (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oldest living people in the World

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUPrOY1GXAc

119 years old — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.105.236 (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Salustiano Sanchez Verified as World's Oldest Man

Salustiano Sanchez has just been verified by GWR and the GRG as the new world's oldest man (ever since the death of Jiroemon Kimura). http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/07/25/2598585/at-112-ny-man-is-worlds-oldest.html http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2013/7/salustiano-sanchez-confirmed-as-oldest-living-man-50056/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.130.28 (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sant Kaur Bajwa

Sant Kaur Bajwa may need to be added if verifiction takes place. Francium12 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Verification won't happen. See http://www.grg.org/CalmentFraud.html. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)