Talk:Oldest people

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1], 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 [2] 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 - [3] 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)

wrong

latest news.In Romania exist records of a man who died at the age of 148 years old.

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)

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)

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 [4], 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)