Talk:List of the oldest people by country/Archive 1

Untitled

Why is "Australia" stuck under "Netherlands?" -- 131.96.14.23

Sorting by country name might be preferable. -- User:Docu

I have now done so. One gets involved in the strangest things! I editted this article because of a VfD by alphabetizing and mergin an entry, now I am going to fix some grammar and clarity, perhaps bringing some consistency to the page as well. Yet I really have no interest in the subject! Just one of those things you end up doing because it needs to be done. HyperZonk^talk 01:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting the entries. I reversed #Switzerland to its previous state as I don't know who is the national record holder (according to the reference 3 others than Bonzo-Wrede may qualify) and I think the list given instead is just as useful. If we wanted to limit sections to just two persons, Supercentenarian#National_longevity_recordholders would be sufficient. -- User:Docu

Well, Docu, I am not going to get into a revert/edit war with you on an article I actually don't have that much interest in, but to me it seems perfectly clear who is the oldest person in your list of Swiss citizens ... can it be too much of a stretch to say it is the person who made it to 110 years old instead of the ones who made it to 109? Secondly, the references are not in English, which is of limited usefulness to English speakers except those who speak German. However, references are references, but they should be in standard format instead of just bare numbered links. Third, I had attempted to make the format consistent, and you have broken that consistency. The content format was Person holds the [fe]male record at yyy years and ddd days (date-date). And then followed by any supplemental data, such as disputes and/or locations. Fourth, the page intro clearly sets a cut-off point for this page, currently at 110 years; you have introduced individuals under that age (see first point). Fifth and last, this page presumably exists beyond the Supercentenarian subhead because that list contains only one person, has no place for extended comments, and does not speak to alternate claims and other disputes. Feel free to own this page if it means that much to you. Perhaps you could clean up the grammar a little though: it should say, "The oldest living Swiss are said to be:" with no italics. HyperZonk^talk 16:15, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I had read only title, list and part of the introduction, but I missed the idea that the list is supposed to be limited to countries with supercentenarians.

That is actually a fallacious concept pounded by Mr. Epstein (12.144 whatever). In truth, the "national longevity recordholders" concerns whoever holds the longevity record, whatever that age may be. The "national longevity recordholder" is the oldest verified person for a particular nation, whether they be 108 or 110 doesn't matter (intuitively). But Mr. Epstein doesn't go by logic. 131.96.14.57 00:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously if we don't have a cutoff age we can have records for every country under the sun.But keeping a high cutoff age keeps the article size AND the number of disputes manageable.The assertion that my concepts are fallacious is just a way of cultivating disagreement without offering sensible counterargument to the reasons I have given for the decisions I make.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 00:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we should either re-write the introduction or delete the Swiss section, as Bonzo-Wrede alone is of limited use. She is in fact just one of four known Swiss supercentenarians (that is stated in the article). Dying just ten days after her birthday, it is unlikely she was even one of the three oldest. You might want to search further to identify them. -- User:Docu

Hmmm, indeed, who knows why the original author chose the age s/he did (in fact, it was originally 112, I changed it to 110 so we could incorporate Ireland, Switzerland, and others in my last edit). It seems arbitrary ... as, indeed, does 110. I guess the thought was that we don't necessarily want to catalog countries with a maximum age of 60,

Of course not! Any nation with a standard of documentation decent enough to have a recordholder will have as their oldest person someone older than 100, probably over 105. Even in Afghanistan, there are clearly people older than 80 or 90. 131.96.14.57 00:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

for instance (are there any such?). That still seems arbitrary to me. So I think maybe we should get rid of the cutoff line. By the same token, I think pounding out a list of the top four candidates of a given country is probably unfair to the countries that can only muster one recordholder ;). Seriously, I think we should be only talking about claimants, and as I cannot read German, I do not know what the alternating claims are for the four Swiss citizens listed. I had tried to deal in a reasonably (though not perfectly) standard way with countries that have alternate claimants, also. If it were solely up to me, I would suggest that we should try to bring Switzerland at least into some semblance of conformity with the other entries (if that is, in fact, possible). And I assume that there is a consensus between you and I at least that the maximum age qualification in the intro section should be dropped? Also, as I said before, I think that the web references should be more than bare numbered links (especially since the reader may be a bit surprised to land on a page in German from the en. site). As I have said, I don't really have any serious interest in this subject, but if you want to collab to form a more perfect article, I am always happy to help with cleanup chores (still trying to do three or four cleanup-tagged article a day). HyperZonk^talk 01:55, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Before they died, the four listed were all living national longevity recordholders, at least according to the included news reports. I will edit the introduction to make this clearer.

So, you're missing the point, eh? Is this a list of the oldest LIVING recordholders, or is it a list of the recordholder for the nation? Because if it's a list of the "oldest living," then we could add in quite a few...Japan's data goes back to at least 1976, as does the U.S. list... 131.96.14.57 00:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably due to decentralized record keeping and data protection, many are cautious about declaring one as the oldest. The number of supercentenarians (4) is reported to come from the Swiss Federal Statistics office. I speculate that it's based on data from the Swiss public pension scheme (AHV/AVS).

I don't mind if you remove the references, but news sources are sometimes linked that way, and we could update the introduction to remove the minimum age, afterall the text is no longer a section of the supercentenarian article. -- User:Docu

I don't actually have any trouble with the links, it is the absence of anything other than bare number links. I've seen those links in other places, and think that it is bad form for such cases. My suggestion for good formatting would be based on the WP reference style recommendation to be something like:

(see "Älteste Schweizerin im Alter von 109 Jahren gestorben". (9 July 2004) Neue Zürcher Zeitung. [German only] [1]).

Though the "German only" part may not be necessary, as the title is clearly in German (or, at least, clearly not in English if the reader isn't familiar with German). Though it is, of course, WP style, I'm also not sure that I like the way the linked date looks; perhaps it would be better to leave the date in the style of the cited paper. With those two alternatives, the reference looks like this:

(see "Älteste Schweizerin im Alter von 109 Jahren gestorben". (9 July 2004) Neue Zürcher Zeitung. [2]).

Source code for these entries:

(see "Älteste Schweizerin im Alter von 109 Jahren gestorben". ([[9 July]] [[2004]]) Neue Zürcher Zeitung. [German only] <small>[http://l005sys0.nzz.ch/2004/07/09/vm/page-newzzDWG1QDEE-12.html]</small>).

(see "Älteste Schweizerin im Alter von 109 Jahren gestorben". (9 July 2004) Neue Zürcher Zeitung. <small>[http://l005sys0.nzz.ch/2004/07/09/vm/page-newzzDWG1QDEE-12.html]</small>).

Of course, such suggestions for inline reference style should probably go to the overall community, but we can always use them here for the time being. I'll touch up the intro text to the overall article, see if you like it. HyperZonk^talk 17:17, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Another thing: having just tried to make the intro paragraph on links/boldface/biographies more encyclopedic in tone, I have to say that I think the paragraph is altogether unencyclopedic. I think maybe it should be deleted. Your thoughts? HyperZonk^talk 17:32, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that 12.144.5.2 has reverted all the changes made recently fixing up the punctuation and ordering of the countries in the article. Before this turns into a revert war, I think maybe we should get a consensus about how the article should be structured. Firstly the punctuation changes are a no-brainer, I (and 30+ other people) explained to 12.144.5.2 on his talk page that it doesn't comply with the style policy of Wikipedia. Secondly the countries should be in alphabetical order in my opinion, if you want to have a list of people by country, make a small table at the top. 12.144.5.2, please participate in this discussion if you can and make your argument, don't just revert contributions. -- Meesham 14:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see my earlier statement below on the revert--L.E./12.144.5.2 19:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To the user who didn't log in but mass reverted: I've spent a cumulative total of about an hour cleaning up the punctuation and spacing on this article, and to have the whole thing reverted to a version (from a few weeks ago, apparently) which undoes not only my work but that of a few other people is rather irksome. I have no patience with experiments in non-standard punctuation in the article space, so please don't do that. Punctuation is nothing more (or less) than common courtesy to the reader. Keeping that in mind, make changes and add to the work several people have done, as you will, to your hearts content, but please do not revert way back. Jonathunder 16:44, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Also, I agree with Meesham on the alphabetical order. Since the article is on *national* recordholders, and organized by name of country, it should be alphabetized that way. If someone wants to add a table, as Meesham suggested, I think that's a fine idea. Jonathunder 16:55, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

I created this article essentially as overspill from the supercentenarian article,since national recordholders weren't really a good fit with the lists of oldest-ever and oldest-living there.If you want to put spaces after my punctuation marks I am not going to revert that (I'd be doing it everywhere if that were my practice).However,the organization of the article I think is absolutely ruined by the substantive edits I reverted (alphabetization and abandonment of the conventions for who gets listed and how).There are reasons for every way I did things and I don't see coherent counter-arguments for any of them.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Louis Epstein. Do Not Alphabetize!! This is how I want it:

• Nations in order of the age of the overall recordholder.
• Overall recordholder first,female unless otherwise stated (see intro),then the recordholder of the other sex where known.
• Only verified cases (Guinness Book etc.).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.28.221 (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No one born in 20th Century is a supercentenarian?

You will note that I have once again reworded the section of the article introduction dealing with persons born in the 20th century. This is because there are clearly persons born in the twentieth century who are supercentenarians — a person born in 1902, for instance, is now 102 or 103 years old. However, none are yet longevity recordholders (at least, none have yet been reported to be in this article). As I am sure you know, supercentenarian only means "more than 100 years old." And there are certainly people born in the twentieth century who are (or, if they have passed on since 2001, "were") more than 100 years old. HyperZonk^talk 17:17, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that supercentenarian means greater than or equal to 110 years. Centenarian is for people 100 - 109. See the supercentenarian article. Matthias5 00:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle. That will teach me to simply assume definition from prefixes! However, is supercentenarian a necessary attribute of a given nation's recordholder? (See discussion above regarding artificial limitations to this list.) Perhaps we should remove the language about supercentenarians altogether, as it would seem that several countries may not have recordholders that have achieved the age required for such a distinguished title. [Perhaps this whole thing will also teach me to get heavily involved in articles on subjects that I am so disinterested in. *sigh* Probably not, though.] HyperZonk^talk 01:10, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, what do you know, I had already actually taken care of that in my last edit. Therefore, I am requesting comment on whether or not the language regarding the current supply of 20th century supercentenarians should be left out as it currently stands (the bit at the end of the intro would seem to me to be something to leave in place in either case), or if it should be restored. HyperZonk^talk 01:13, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

There is NO logical reason to have ANY reference to "no 20th-century recordholders." It's like saying "no one under age 100 is over 100 years old." By definition: 2005-1901=104 years. By definition, a recordholder should be the oldest person in the country. By definition, that age is generally reserved for those persons 105+. Thus, having no 20th-century recordholders has NO BEARING on the quality of documentation in the 20th century. It's like saying that since there are no dodo birds at the zoo, the zoo must have sub-standard care. Hello? Since dodos are extinct, they cannot exist at the zoo and therefore have no bearing on zoo care. Likewise, since 20th-century SUPERCENTENARIANS (persons 110+) are excluded, by definition, until 2011, there is simply no reason to suggest that this has any bearing on the quality of 20th-century recordkeeping. 131.96.14.57 00:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me -- it seems that 100 is as appropriate as a cutoff as 110. I'm not terribly interested in this topic either. Probably 100 is going to be as hard to prove for the vast majority of countries anyway, keeping the list manageable. Any arbitrary cutoff date is just that -- it seems that we're constrained more by the record keeping in the country than anything else -- because this is for documented old people, not myths. I'd be interested to see what age the oldest person achieved in Nigeria, but that question doesn't seem to answerable currently. Matthias5 21:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Back to the original!

I created this article,rescued it from deletion attempts (not VfD,deliberate blanking),and turned my attention elsewhere,only to come back a couple of weeks ago to find it massively altered.I left a note on Hyperzonk's talk page explaining why I preferred the original format,but he has not responded in weeks,so I am going ahead and putting it back the way it was:

• Nations in order of the age of the overall recordholder.
• Overall recordholder first,female unless otherwise stated (see intro),then the recordholder of the other sex where known.
• Only verified cases (Guinness Book etc.) (the authenticated Irish recordholder is Katherine Plunket,not Margaret Dolan).
• No countries where no one reached 112.

If you want to discuss these policies please do,but erasing them out of not even understanding that they exist doesn't help things.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 16:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In short, Mr. Epstein views this as his "personal playpen," not a Wikipedia article. If he doesn't want to use proper spacing, punctuation, capitalization, etc., there's no one that's going to stop him! (Unless they ban him, of course). But aside from the aesthetics, there is the issue of content: Mr. Epstein wants the article tailored to his every idiosyncracy, with no standards. Are we to include the "oldest man" for every article, or just for those where the oldest man happens to be 110 and older? Emigrant records should only be included where their age exceeds that of the national recordholder. 131.96.14.57 00:51, 7 Apr 2

I fight efforts to drag it down to the lowest common denominator,yes.Recordholders of the opposite sex to the overall recordholder who are not supercentenarians are not traced.And where does an emigrant who does not break a country's record appear?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do Not Alphabetize!!

A couple of people have said they like the idea of the countries being in alphabetical order,but nobody has given a reason.As I see it there is every reason to leave the countries in order of recordholder's age,from the world recordholder's country down to the country with a record closest to the cutoff age.This makes clearer down to where countries are all listed,and below which no countries are listed (the catch-as-can additions some have offered are disturbingly selective).Anyone who wants to look up a country should have no trouble with the TOC.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see some argument for alphabetizing given in the discussion above, but since they are evidently being overlooked, I will restate the ones I gave. I agree with Meesham on the alphabetical order. Since the article is on national recordholders and is organized by name of country, it should be alphabetized that way. There is already an article, supercentenarians, which lists people by age. We don't need to duplicate that article. I do see others who generally agreed as well. Jonathunder 20:13, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Alphabetizing is fine with me, but Jonathunder, perhaps you shouldn't be editing the main text, as you introduced several errors in logic and fallacious statements. 66.64.156.146 20:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If there are any errors, please do correct them. I made no changes at all to the text, but I did spend considerable time fixing spacing and punctuation. When another user (who also wasn't logged in) did a mass revert to a version from a few weeks ago, I reverted back. Jonathunder 21:40, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Ordering countries by record holders would only make sense if this article was named Longetivity recordholders by country or something to that effect. Since this is listing record holders for each country, alphabetising the country list is the most readible (although readibility doesn't seem to be some peoples concern here) and sensible way of sorting the country list. Meesham 05:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the countries qualify for the list based on having produced documented persons of sufficient age.And it's much easier to see that by having them in the order in which their recordholders have survived (though this does shuffle...Portugal has just moved ahead of Australia,so the next time I update my fork I'll have to retype those two).The country list is there in the TOC for anyone to look up a particular country...--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 16:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And here we go again.I add updated,relevant facts to the form of the article in the only format that makes sense,and Jonathunder,who cares about nothing but spaces after punctuation,reverts the facts out and puts the article back to randomly including countries that have no documented 112-year-olds rather than uniform treatment down to that cutoff age and uniform exclusion below it.--Louis Epstein (never anonymous)/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 22:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It is the consensus of every other editor who has commented here that the formatted, aphabetized version with a space between sentences is easier to read. Please do not keep reverting against consensus. Jonathunder 23:07, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

I created this article to serve as an extended,more informative version of a table in the Supercentenarian article that was in age order.'ALPHABETIZATION MASSIVELY REDUCES THE USEFULNESS OF THE INFORMATION.' The casual alterations that have piled up in the non-alphabetized fork of this article also detract from its content.That a consensus are clueless doesn't mean the article should have to put up with the flaws of that fork.If you don't like my efficient spacing,then let the User:Mathbot come along and put spaces after the punctuation marks in the version that has the countries in order by age of the recordholder,does not go below a pre-declared cutoff age,and does not randomly include or exclude countries,and treat them in different ways,below that age.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 04:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

And I note that Jonathunder has not been remotely convincing in justifying the alphabetized version,and I continue to regard only the age-ordered version of the article as remotely useful.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC regarding article formatting

There is a long-simmering edit war here regarding the order, formatting, and content of this list. The important content issues seem to be

1. Order. Should countries be ordered alphabetically or by age of longevity record holder?
2. Inclusion. Should countries with longevity record holders below a cutoff age (112 or some other threshold) be included?

If anybody has any other issues they would like to bring up, please add an appropriate subsection. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Order

I find the list easiest to read with the countries in order alphabetically. We can include a reference and link to supercentenarian for people who want a list by age. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The list makes most sense with the countries in order of the recordholder's age.I originated this article as a replacement for the table of national recordholders I considered inappropriately added to the supercentenarian article,where I think it foolish to list people multiple times (aside from living persons on the oldest-living and oldest-by-sex list,and a few historical oldest-livings on the oldest-ever list).It follows the format of the national-recordholders lists published in the Guinness Book of World Records from 1970 to the 1990s...oldest first,down to an age below which they're not tracked.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

To me it makes most sense to sort alphabetically too. I think even the article title would imply that, it is about oldest living person by country, so it has to be sorted by country, not by age. Besides, there is sorting by age at supercentenarian.

By the way, I have a disclaimer to make. I have a bit of tooth against Mr. Epstein with the punctuation issue, but that only brought me to the article, the decision on which position to support was based on objective reasoning (I hope). Oleg Alexandrov 04:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There is sometimes debate over whether people are as old as they claim or are claimed to be; sometimes this represents genuine uncertainty, and the position of countries in "by-oldest" order depends on whether or not they are accepted as genuine; at worst, someone who disagrees might put in a duplicate entry with a different claim. If the countries are listed alphabetically, however, all that is needed is a suitable caveat on the doubtful claim. As mentioned above, it also make life clearer for readers. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

But the non-alphabetized version carefully excludes all doubted cases,only the people who alphabetized it started adding ones that shouldn't be here.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 13:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Susvolans on annotating dubious claims and leaving it at that. At the same time, ordering alphabetically removes some of the appeal of adding a dubious claim to this list—your country doesn't get moved up. Louis, please refrain from describing the well-intended edits of others as vandalism (we can, and do, see your edit summaries). Also–while you are indisputably a recognized expert on the subject–it's not appropriate to remove any and all entries that don't receive your personal imprimatur. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I also came to this article due to an interest in Mr Epstein's issues. As such, I am merely a casual reader of the page. Perhaps a proper solution would be to have a list of the ten oldest documented at the beginning of the article (name, age, country) and then each country listed alphabetically (with the other details on the country entry). I'll admit to not being particularly concerned one way or the other. I know if I came to the article to look, I'd both want to know who the oldest people were and how to quickly find a particular country without knowing in advance what place they are in by age. As such, it would seem to me that having a short numerical list followed by all countries alphabetically would make the casual user most satisfied. I defer to the other editors here and hope that you can all be reasonable. --Habap 18:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The Supercentenarian article is where the overall oldest individuals are listed by age, and that should remain prominently linked to from this article, but there is no need to duplicate that article in this one. National longevity recordholders, as the name implies, is organized by nationality. Jonathunder 02:26, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

Inclusion

I don't see any reason to exclude any country from this list. This is an article on National longevity recordholders, and I don't why nations should be excluded because their particular recordholders aren't above some arbitrary threshold. Once again, the 'oldest of the old' are available on supercentenarian. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

If there is not a cutoff age the criteria become too random.The lower you go the harder it is to be sure you have every documented case,and thus every qualified country represented.To abandon a cutoff age translates to sacrificing data quality and consistency.(The non-age-ordered version of this list includes a number of doubted cases and entries are in a less consistent format).Below age 110 there is no recognized list that identifies everyone to have reached that age,and most countries have no documented supercentenarians.Not all supercentenarians are national recordholders,but a national recordholder who isn't a supercentenarian is frankly not worth listing.And a higher cutoff than 110 takes care of some of the less documented national recordholders and results in a higher quality final data-set.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I frankly see no benefit in an arbitrary cut-off by age. It does make sense to exclude countries where there isn't verifiable information, but judging purely on age rather than verifiability is daft. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Only by being all-inclusive down to a certain age is the inclusion or exclusion of nations not arbitrary or deceptive.The chance that someone has been missed increases the younger you go,and the appearance that there was no one from a country implies that the longevity of its residents is necessarily below that of any listed country when it may well not be.Keeping the cutoff age at 112 avoids including some of the more doubtful Guinness national recordholders (Philipovitch,Mielzcarak,El Mokri,etc) and thus makes the list more reliable.In creating this article I thought through a lot of issues that people just don't get,it seems.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If dubious national recordholders start appearing, they can be annotated as such. A disclaimer to the effect that the younger national recordholders (if any are added) are often unsupported by reliable documentation could be added to the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Significant dubious entries are already there in the alphabetized version,a reason I revert to the correct non-alphabetized version.It is better to just hold the line at being inappropriately inclusive...Wikibloat is a blight all over Wikipedia,but in this little corner I've come up with good solutions that run into trouble because more people don't understand the reasons than do.People listed here should come from the same data universe [3] as the entries in the supercentenarian article.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 15:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Flags

Personally, I prefer the version without flags. It also has the advantage that it loads faster. May I remove them? -- User:Docu

Ok, as you don't mind, I removed them. -- User:Docu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Finch, Stefan, Vietoris

Leopold Vietoris is deceased so he was de-highlighted (de-bolded); Elizabeth Stefan and Florence Finch are still alive (!!!) so they were created as redirects for the sake of consistency and bolded. Ain'tshesweet 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Who said the bold=still alive? Bold means the recordholder doesn't have an article written about them. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sweden

Astrid Zachrison claims that she was born in 1885; is this a hoax article or does this list need to be updated? Nevermind, back to the trenches for me. -- nae'blis 14:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That should be 1895, not 1885. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 15:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Errr, right. That's what I get for editing before I'm properly caffeinated... it would appear that Astrid is roughly 111.25 years - I'll see if someone can find a source, since I can't read Swedish and almost all of the Google results are about this Wikipedia page/mirrors. -- nae'blis 15:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Age in years and days

There is a new template: {{age in years and days}} which may be useful here. —Moondyne 14:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Iceland

see this link: http://www.halfdan.is/news/newsletter_056.htm#gudrunarnason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.105.43 (talk • contribs)

Lovely: thank you. Extremely sexy 23:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations

It is about time to start adding more substantive citations.Ryoung122 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oldest polish people

Benedykta Mackieło born 1 may 1893 - 1 january 2007 documentation - http://www.rmf.fm/fakty/pic.html?id=111145&img=111145.jpg 113+days http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedykta_Mackie%C5%82o http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedykta_Mackielo

Józef Buszyło died 8 mars 2007

Janina Izykowska (Iżykowska) 27 february 1882 25 september 1998 +116 lat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.181.249 (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

These lists are proven records, not claims. Can anyone find the birth, marriage, and death certificates for any one of these cases? If so, e-mail me at robertdouglasyoung@yahoo.comRyoung122 07:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Migrants

Anyone been able to verify wether emigrants, like Herman Smith-Johannsen, have obtained citizenships in the countries they immigrated to, and/or given up their old citizenships? I checked some on the Danish-American Mortensen, looked like he'd obtained some kind of American citizenship (though I'm not sure that means he gave up his Danish one, he identified himself as Danish when he signed up for the old folks home?). I assume they should be listed under the countries they were citizens of, rather than how they identified themselves or where they lived. Lejman 13:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

China or Hong Kong

How reliable is the case of Nicholas Kao Se Tseien? Can he be added for China or for Hong Kong on this page? Rrsmac 23:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea. China has 1.3 billion people, maybe just for 'Hong Kong (China)' as a territory, like those at the bottom of the page.Ryoung122 09:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. Is he the longest lived Hong Kong person or is there a woman (or a man) who lived longer? Rrsmac (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bolding

For the sake of consistency with other articles, I think the people currently still alive should be bolded, not those who are the oldest people in the world. Either that or maybe use the green highlighting (see the List of the verified oldest people). Secondly, and again for consistency, I think Izumi should be highlighted in the same way as Calment (even though I personally do not believe his claim). Other articles are consistent with giving him the Japan record. Maybe he shouldn't have it, but I think it's best to just say that his claim is doubtful, and leave the use to come to their own conclusion.86.153.221.46 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Maria Tomson claim

I have deleted the Estonian national records as one - Maria Thomson, who it is claimed lived from Dec 27 1853 to Apr 26 1966 - is not only unverified, the claim would contradict various other lists already here, such as the "Oldest Living People" list on Oldest people. If her claim was true, four or five long-established claims would have to be discarded, claims which in some cases have been proven some 40 years ago. For this reason alone, we should be very cautious to elevate a claim to a national record. Canada Jack (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So in which article the Estonian recordholders Maria Tomson and Juhan Kallaste could be mentioned? There is no use of the articles if there are no relevant links. Andres (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

After checking the other articles, there is no other obvious place to put Tomson. The page for unverified claims lists only recent claims and older claims - but for 115 and older. How about a compromise here. Instead of putting Tomson on the main list on this page, we put her and Kallaste in the section below which discusses various national claims. In that way, she gets the mention and if down the road more information comes forward to verify her claim, she can be moved onto the main list. Canada Jack (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put Tomson and Kallaste on the page, but not in the chart, only in the section detailing each country. I believe I am justified in doing this for several reasons: In checking the list of supercentenarians here [4] which lists all verified cases to April 2007, plus many additional claims with some or no documentation, Estonia is the only country which lacks a claim anywhere here on the various wikipedia pages. Claims from Mexico and Chile can be found on the Longevity claims page, and they are the only other countries I have found which have no mention on this page besides Estonia. Further, Tomson's claim is from the 1960s and while not corroborated, has not been completely dismissed. Finally, there seems to be no better place to put her than here as she wasn't quite old enough to meet the standard of other lists of claims (115 years for past unverified claims). So, while there might be an objection that in opening this up to an unverified claim, the other potential countries which might be so listed are in fact covered elsewhere. Estonia, as far as I can tell, is unique in this regard and therefore should be included here. Canada Jack (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Emigrants

Who gets put under which country if they emigrated? Christian Mortensen (born Denmark, died USA) has been 'claimed' by the USA, yet Lucy D'Abreu (born India, died UK) is 'claimed' by India. For consistency, I think we need to decide which one to use, or to find some way of using both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.199.9 (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true, so maybe listing both countries is the best option. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Serbia

Can Kosara Momirović (6 March 1900 - 8 July 2009) of Serbia be mentioned here? Or is citation saying she is oldest Serbian ever have to be cited?

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Territorial recordholders

I was wondering if this is inconsistent:
Consuelo Moreno-Lopéz ist listed as "Territorial Recordholder" for "Morocco Spanish Morocco (Spain/Morocco, after 1956)" but Maria Mika was born in the austrian-hungarian territory Bohemia (today Czech Republic) but isn't listed here...
--Statistician (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's just make up stuff! (NOT)

I'm not happy that some fanboys are just making up "data" when there isn't any. There's no evidence that Melchora Aquino was the Philippine recordholder. Internationally, records below 110 aren't even scrutinized and shouldn't really be in this table. That goes for Hungary, Croatia, wherever.Ryoung122 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Algeria

Meanwhile, however, the French made Algeria an integral part of France, a status that would end only with the collapse of the Fourth Republic. Tens of thousands of settlers from France, Italy, Spain, and Malta moved in to farm the Algerian coastal plain and occupy the most prized parts of Algeria's cities, benefiting from the French government's confiscation of communally held land, and the application of modern agriculture techniques that increased the amount of arable land. People of European descent in Algeria (the so-called pieds-noirs), as well as the native Algerian Jews, became full French citizens starting from the end of the 19th century; by contrast, the vast majority of Muslim Algerians (even veterans of the French army) received neither French citizenship nor the right to vote. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 16:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you provide references for your additions to Algeria, or should we remove it? -- User:Docu

Yes, Docu, we should remove you from this discussion. You have not contributed anything substantive but have caused problems. Since this is NOT your area of expertise, you should bug out. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Anne Primout was a french citizen, from a french family. She left Algeria when Algeria became independent. She died in France 40 years later. Its longevity is due to its french genetics, french lifestyle and french health system. Nothing to do with the Algerian flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.55.93.2 (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Bottom section

This basically is like explaining the article twice, once in a table and once in words. This section should be removed in my opinion. Some things that I have come across have been trivia related, some OR. Just to name a few:

• "The longest-lived Italian is Virginia Dighero-Zolezzi (24 December 1891 – 28 December 2005). She is the only Italian to have reached 114 years of age."
• "Among living persons mathematician Sergey Nikolsky who was born in 1905, is probably the oldest and the most well-known one." Someone is assuming that a 105-year-old man is the oldest person in Russia, which is OR.
• "The official record is held by Lempi Rothovius at 112 years 259 days (2 October 1887 – 17 June 2000). She also previously held the female record for the Nordic countries, before Astrid Zachrison of Sweden surpassed her in 2008."

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rosa Rein

Why is Rosa Rein listed as born in Poland? She was born before the polish state was reestablished after the Firts World War. And the part where she was born was part of the Germany until the End of the Second World War... Btw.: If I remember correctly Elizabeth Stefan, Hungarian Record holder, was born in a part of Hungary which is today part of Romania... Also Maria Mika, the Austrian recorder holder, was born in Bohemia, today Czech Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.243.17 (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2010 (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 [5], [6], [7] Jethwarp (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Italian Longevity Record

Based on the rule that the person's country of birth is credited with the longevity of the person, there should be a new Italian record holder. Dina Manfredini has eclipsed the previous record holder Venere Pizzinato. Currently (December 19, 2011), Dina has reached the age of 114 years, 259 days - fully a week longer than Venere's prior record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirao11 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Pending Cases

Should this list include also Irene Carlos from Antiqua & Barbuda, Ismay Spooner from Guyana, Jeanne Hue from Tunisia and Hilda Clingham from St Helena? And Petro Lyzan from Ukraine died 112 years old recently so should he be on the list too? 62.72.230.103 (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sortable table?

Can the table be made sortable by column (age, date of birth, date of death)? Wingedbeaver (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This has been done. But it doesn't work if you sort by age. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

China

Wow you guys, where's China on the list? --Makkachin (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies

There is currently a discussion about what constitutes encyclopedia content on longevity related biographies at Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies please comment. I am One of Many (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of oldest people by nation

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of oldest people by nation's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "GRG":

• From Supercentenarian: Validated living supercentenarians
• From Oldest people: "Validated Living Supercentenarians". Gerontology Research Group.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent presentation of living people

Sort the table by death date such that living people are at the top of the list and it's clear there is inconsistent highlighting:

Country	Name	Sex	Birth date	Death date	Age
Iceland	Georg Ólafsson[o][8][9]	M	26 March 1909	Living	115 years, 73 days
Italy	Emma Morano-Martinuzzi	F	29 November 1899	Living	124 years, 191 days
Jamaica	Violet Brown[r][10]	F	10 March 1900	Living	124 years, 89 days
Mexico	Dominga Velasco (lives in the USA)	F	12 May 1901	Living	123 years, 26 days
Moldova	Goldie Steinberg[t] (lives in the USA)	F	30 October 1900	Living	123 years, 221 days
Russia	Goldie Michelson[z] (lives in the USA)	F	8 August 1902	Living	121 years, 304 days

Similarly with the Territorial and overseas regions recordholders section:

Country	Territory	Name	Sex	Birth date	Death date	Age
Denmark	Faroe Islands	Theodor Thomassen[11]	M	28 October 1908	Living	115 years, 223 days
France	French Guiana	Eudoxie Baboul	F	1 October 1901	Living	122 years, 250 days

I'm not sure what the standard is, but whatever it is it needs implementing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You might as well be bold, think of a reasonable highlighting scheme, and implement it. IMO, highlighting only the word Living would work well. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Color alone is a violation of MOS:COLOR. We need some more thought about this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It isn't colour alone I don't think, as it's just duplicating "Living" in the date of death column? Thryduulf (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I think it does (green=living). So why can't the colouring just be removed? If consistent colouring is desired, either 1) rowspans have to be abandoned, or 2) only the column "Death date" can be highlighted, or 3) the example of the Russian entries has to be applied to other multi-row entries; the entry for Russia specifies the neutral background explicitly for column "Country". My preference is 2). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think 2 is my preference too. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

---

List of oldest people by nation → List of oldest people by country – As seen by Category:Lists by country and in the subpages and in every other country-related discussion, we use the word country not nation. This 2010 move rationale ("United Nations" not "United Countries") is not in line with policy. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Grammatically and alternatively, would it better to move to List of the oldest people by country or even List of the world's oldest people by country? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not really a grammar issue but one of style. Titles are typically in headlinese with articles (a/the) dropped. List of world's oldest people by country has factual issues insofar as the subjects in the list are/were not the oldest people in the world at a given time but the oldest in their respective countries. —  AjaxSmack  13:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Some say "potato". But your reasoning makes sense, although I don't think it's a policy matter. Randy Kryn 11:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per broader consensus on Wikipedia. Ca2james (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. You're just hating on Dr Young. He was right, there are no "United Cointries." Rename everything else to nation's instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite right you are, there is indeed no such thing as "United Cointries". And that's relevant how? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. A nation is "a social concept with no uncontroversial definition". Let's be clear. —  AjaxSmack  01:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggestion

I see no value in duplicating this entire article at Oldest people. Either merge this entire article there or point here for the information. Someone should check if this table conflicts with the ones here already. Legacypac (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Data from Oldest people

This article gives the recordholders for various countries to the extent that they have been established. These records are based on place of birth in current borders for simplicity. Those listed as 'verified' have been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group.

  Deceased   Living

Country	Name	Sex	Birth date	Death date	Age
France	Jeanne Calment	F	21 February 1875	4 August 1997	122 years, 164 days
United States	Sarah Knauss	F	24 September 1880	30 December 1999	119 years, 97 days
Canada	Marie-Louise Meilleur	F	29 August 1880	16 April 1998	117 years, 230 days
Japan	Misao Okawa	F	5 March 1898	1 April 2015	117 years, 27 days
Ecuador	María Capovilla	F	14 September 1889	27 August 2006	116 years, 347 days
Italy	Emma Morano-Martinuzzi	F	29 November 1899	Living	124 years, 191 days
Jamaica	Violet Brown[a]	F	10 March 1900	Living	124 years, 89 days
Denmark	Christian Mortensen	M	16 August 1882	25 April 1998	115 years, 252 days
United Kingdom	Charlotte Hughes	F	1 August 1877	17 March 1993	115 years, 228 days
Portugal	Maria de Jesus	F	10 September 1893	2 January 2009	115 years, 114 days
Poland	Augusta Holtz[b]	F	3 August 1871	21 October 1986	115 years, 79 days
Netherlands	Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper	F	29 June 1890	30 August 2005	115 years, 62 days
Brazil	Maria Gomes Valentim	F	9 July 1896	21 June 2011	114 years, 347 days
Moldova	Goldie Steinberg[c]	F	30 October 1900	16 August 2015	114 years, 290 days
Spain	Maria Antonia Castro[12]	F	10 June 1881	16 January 1996	114 years, 220 days
Cape Verde	Adelina Domingues[d]	F	19 February 1888	21 August 2002	114 years, 183 days
Germany	Charlotte Benkner	F	16 November 1889	14 May 2004	114 years, 180 days
Algeria	Anne Primout[e]	F	5 October 1890	26 March 2005	114 years, 172 days
Mexico	Dominga Velasco	F	12 May 1901	11 October 2015	114 years, 152 days
Australia	Christina Cock[f]	F	25 December 1887	22 May 2002	114 years, 148 days
India	Lucy d'Abreu[g]	F	24 May 1892	7 December 2005	113 years, 197 days
Ireland	Kathleen Snavely[h]	F	16 February 1902	6 July 2015	113 years, 140 days
Russia	Goldie Michelson[i]	F	8 August 1902	Living	121 years, 304 days
Barbados	James Sisnett[j]	M	22 February 1900	23 May 2013	113 years, 90 days
Sweden	Astrid Zachrison	F	15 May 1895	15 May 2008	113 years, 0 days
Hungary	Elizabeth Stefan[k]	F	13 May 1895	9 April 2008	112 years, 332 days
Finland	Lempi Rothovius[l]	F	2 October 1887	17 June 2000	112 years, 259 days
Belgium	Joanna Deroover	F	3 June 1890	6 December 2002	112 years, 186 days
Czech Republic	Maria Mika[m]	F	23 May 1882	17 November 1994	112 years, 178 days
Argentina	Luisa Roncoroni de BizzozeroLuisa Roncoroni, 110 años de vitalidad	F	30 June 1903	1 September 2015	112 years, 63 days
Norway	Maren Bolette Torp	F	21 December 1876	20 February 1989	112 years, 61 days
Morocco	Consuelo Moreno[n]	F	5 February 1893	13 November 2004	111 years, 282 days
South Africa	Johanna Booyson	F	17 January 1857	16 June 1968	111 years, 151 days
Belarus	Mollye Marcus[o]	F	18 October 1899	18 February 2011	111 years, 123 days
Colombia	Daniel Guzmán-García	M	6 February 1897	21 May 2008	111 years, 105 days
Switzerland	Emma Duvoisin	F	5 July 1886	30 September 1997	111 years, 87 days
Austria	Hermine Nistler	F	24 December 1900	13 February 2012	111 years, 51 days
Greece	Gregory Pandazes	M	15 January 1873	22 December 1983	110 years, 341 days
Slovenia	Katarina Marinič[p]	F	30 October 1899	2 September 2010	110 years, 307 days
Saint Kitts and Nevis	Rosalind Hill[q]	F	30 March 1899	18 January 2010	110 years, 294 days
Lithuania	Ella Ille Rentel[r]	F	19 May 1852	19 September 1962	110 years, 123 days
Croatia	Hermina Dunz[s]	F	24 February 1898	14 June 2008	110 years, 111 days
Peru	Julia Dougherty	F	20 August 1893	4 December 2003	110 years, 106 days
New Zealand	Ethel Booth[t]	F	25 December 1890	18 February 2001	110 years, 55 days
Iceland	Guðrún Björnsdóttir[u][13]	F	20 October 1888	26 August 1998	109 years, 310 days

a^ Brown was born in Jamaica, then a British colony.
b^ Holtz was born in Czarnikau, which was then part of the German Empire; it is now Czarnków and located in Poland.
c^ Steinberg was born in Kishinev, which was then a part of the Russian Empire; it is now located in Moldova.
d^ Domingues was born in Cape Verde, which was at the time of her birth a Portuguese colony; now it is an independent country.
e^ Primout was born in French Algeria; it is now Algeria.
f^ Cock was born in the former British colony Victoria, which is now part of Australia.
g^ d'Abreu was born in Dharwar, which was then a part of the British Raj; it is now located in India.
h^ Snavely was born in Ireland, then part of the United Kingdom.
i^ Michelson was born in the Russian Empire; it is now Russia.
j^ Sisnett was born in Barbados, which was at the time of his birth a British colony; now it is an independent country.
k^ Stefan was born in Siebenbürgen, which was then part of Austria-Hungary. It is now in Romania.
l^ Rothovius was born in Finland, then an autonomous state of the Russian Empire.
m^ Mika was born in Bohemia, which was then part of Austria-Hungary; it is now located in the Czech Republic.
n^ Moreno was born in Spanish Morocco, which was then a part of the Spanish Empire; it is now Morocco.
o^ Marcus was born in Lechovitz, which was then a part of the Russian Empire; it is now located in Belarus.
p^ Marinič was born in Deskle, which was then a part of Austria-Hungary; it is now located in Slovenia.
q^ Hill was born in Saint Kitts and Nevis, which was at the time of her birth a British colony; now it is an independent country.
r^ Rentel was born in Geldauschinken, which was then a part of the Russian Empire; it is now located in Lithuania.
s^ Dunz was born in Zagreb, which was then a part of Austria-Hungary; it is now located in Croatia.
t^ Booth was born in New Zealand, which was at the time of her birth a British colony; now it is an independent country.
u^ Björnsdóttir was born in Iceland, which was at the time of her birth a part of Denmark; now it is an independent country.

Territorial recordholders

Country	Territory	Name	Sex	Birth date	Death date	Age
Denmark	Faroe Islands	Theodor Thomassen[14]	M	28 October 1908	Living	115 years, 223 days
	Greenland	Malene Lund[15][16]	F	6 June 1877	27 January 1979	101 years, 235 days
France	Saint Barthélemy	Eugénie Blanchard	F	16 February 1896	4 November 2010	114 years, 261 days
	French Guiana	Eudoxie Baboul[17]	F	1 October 1901	Living	122 years, 250 days
	Guadeloupe	Luce Maced	F	2 May 1886	25 February 2000	113 years, 299 days
	Réunion	Julia Sinédia-Cazour	F	12 July 1892	6 October 2005	113 years, 86 days
	Martinique	Irénise Moulonguet	F	6 November 1900	28 May 2013	112 years, 203 days
	New Caledonia	Marie-Louise Lhuillier	F	26 June 1895	28 December 2007	112 years, 185 days
United States	Puerto Rico	Emiliano Mercado del Toro	M	21 August 1891	24 January 2007	115 years, 156 days

Jelisaveta Veljković died

Serbian supercentenarian, Mrs. Jelisaveta Veiljković (Serb. Јелисавета Вељковић) has died today (October 22, 2016) in her 113th year. The news in Serbian are given in "Politika" newspapers, one of the most famous in Serbia, so it is an official news. (http://www.rts.rs/page/magazine/ci/story/501/zanimljivosti/2498848/u-113-godini-preminula-najstarija-beogradjanka.html)

Best regards, Ant83 (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Chester Pushie

Different sources from GRG give different ages. This gives an age of 110 years and 21 days (death on 15 July); while Pushie this says he died on 22 July and was aged 110 years and 28 days. There needs to be a single definitive age before he can be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget to check if there was some date in the Julian calendar (it is THAT long ago :o), or there could simply have been some mistake in old document. In case of doubt, the safest is to take the shorter lifespan with a note until resolved.

15:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.73.14.41 (talk)

Irena Rozencvajg

Irena Rozencvajg from Subotica, Vojvodina, Serbia is now probably oldest living person in Serbia. She was born on 8 November 1909.[18] this was when she was 103 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.24.65 (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Oldest living American man?

Adele Dunlap has been listed as the oldest living person in the USA, but why is there no man listed together with her? Is it still not confirmed who the oldest living man in the USA is? According to Wikipedia, it is Clarene Matthews born 1 May 1906, but is that false? I believe the oldest living American man is Allen Charles Jackson, born 24 November 1903. BjörnBergman 00:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source stating that someone is the oldest living man in the US, speculation is irrelevant. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Oldest Irish man?

Moved from my talk page: You reverted my contribution to List_of_oldest_people_by_country with following:-"Rvt. No statement that Killain was/is the oldest ever Irish man as required for inclusion in this article."

Please see 1st paragraph of the article which is more forgiving than your revert- Such records can only be determined to the extent that the given country's records are reliable. Comprehensive birth registration is largely a 20th-century phenomenon, so records establishing human longevity are necessarily fragmentary. The earliest comprehensive recordkeeping systems arose in Europe. For example, the United Kingdom organized a central recordkeeping system for England and Wales in 1837, making it compulsory by 1874.

Could you revert your revert please as researching/contributing to wikipedia takes time and subject is notable and verified? Nmclough (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This is only source I can find for another old Irishman: <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ireland-s-oldest-man-dies-aged-107-1.2081616|title=Irelands oldest man dies|newspaper=irish times}}</ref> Nmclough (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The requirements for this article are that a person is stated to be the oldest person/man or oldest living person/man in that country. Original research is not a basis for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I have added as note. The verifiable references are public-domain published articles = not original research. Wikipedia is evolving so Ireland has "no oldest man"; I want to add "oldest man" and someone else with verifable sources can dispute. Lets follow Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes Nmclough (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This is best I can find. It uses the word "Irish Record" which, considering reliability clause (116 years ago) nearly meets your criteria: <ref>{{cite news|url=http://newspapers.library.wales/view/3746543/3746546/21/Mohill|title=Centenarians, A remarkable Irish Record}}</ref>

I think that is a misuse of the term "record". The following was an edit conflict: Yes, it IS original research if you "find" someone you think is the oldest but there is no reference saying so. Any such claim, by you, fails WP:V and I will remove it on that basis. I am moving this to the appropriate talk page so that other editors can contribute to this discussion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the issues above, the long-standing consensus for this, and others based on longevity, is to exclude entries without specified dates of birth and death. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a long-standing consensus that "reasonable opinion" weighs heavily, and IS implied in WP:V and WP:OR, and echoed in the article with regard to "reliability", "fragmentation", "where known", "disputed", etc. My sources are conservative newspapers repeating a telegram, an accepted component of news infrastructure of that age, confirming a 111yr old man, and rather than original research/thinking, the editorial consensus states "a remarkable age" which reasonable people would hardly argue with. Forcing strict WP:V alignment in the trivia of "oldest people" is unhelpful, and unreasonable intrepretation of editorial intention. Oldest person trivia is a moving target and wikipedia facilitates revision. If you insist on strict interpretation, then I must stand down my contribution. Other editors can refer to this instead: http://www.finbarrconnolly.com/ although WP:V questions still arise (and I have disregarded a 1930's Perth-Australia newspaper report of a 115yr old Irishman due to WP:V too). Nmclough (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

His correct name was "Bernard Kilrane" according to a biography: www.tomcoughlan.net/doyles of clooncarne online-o/p3.htm which also claims he was 111-112yrs old.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmclough (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Nabi Tajima

Why isn't she listed? LordAtlas (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

She is. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

My bad. The sort function is the problem. 10, 11, 12 ..... 4 LordAtlas (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Mary Ellen Moles

@DerbyCountyinNZ: Can you elaborate on this, please? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Moles is not the oldest ever Canadian. There is a separate section for oldest living Canadian. Moles can be entered there, provided there is a reliable source which states that she is the oldest living. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ: The added source is reliable, can you find a suitable place for it? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The link does not go to any report on Mary Ellen Moles. Even if it did she is not the oldest Canadian as Dolly Gibb was born in 1905, as listed in the living section of this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Table

In another context, I've recently created a template that might improve the table in this article. The idea was that dates of birth and deaath only need to be entered once. Here's what the table might look like:

†^ denotes age at death, or, if living, age as of 7 June 2024

Country	Name	Sex	Birth date	Death date	Age [†]
Algeria	Anne Primout (died in France)	F	5 October 1890	26 March 2005	114 years, 172 days
	Émile Fourcade (died in France)	M	29 July 1884	29 December 1995	111 years, 153 days
Argentina	Virginia Secundina Moyano	F	17 May 1904	20 June 2017	113 years, 34 days
Australia	Christina Cock	F	25 December 1887	22 May 2002	114 years, 148 days
	Jack Lockett	M	22 January 1891	25 May 2002	111 years, 123 days

Notes

References

The template currently doesn't deal well with living people, but if the proposed change is accepted, I would add that case and move the template into template space. It could then possibly be used in other age-related lists. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of oldest people by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20150406171627/http://www.stykkisholmur.is/heilsuefling/mannlif/frettir/nr/194460/ to http://www.stykkisholmur.is/heilsuefling/mannlif/frettir/nr/194460/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of oldest people by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402231929/http://www.kvikmyndir.com/langlifinet/pdf/2011.05.24.LANGelstu105109TT.pdf to http://www.kvikmyndir.com/langlifinet/pdf/2011.05.24.LANGelstu105109TT.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813035226/http://www.fiskimannafelag.fo/PDF_Blad/FF-pdf/FF336.pdf to http://www.fiskimannafelag.fo/PDF_Blad/FF-pdf/FF336.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120710081641/http://knr.gl/en/node/58411 to http://knr.gl/en/node/58411

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Q(Korea)

I found data http://www.isisa.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=37159 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqdbjGp-M4o http://www.nocutnews.co.kr/news/4164419 http://m.kyeonggi.com/?mod=news&act=articleView&idxno=1304207 stuffs like this makes me curious. Some of them are real news. (Incheon) Based on these, women who was born in 1899 was really born on that time, unlikely other person, and at least lived until 2017. So, I hope you guys could check this out.... Thanks,Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Emile Fourcade listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Emile Fourcade. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — JFG ^talk 18:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Georgios Liologlou

I recently made a page about Georgios Liologlou, who as sources claim he was bornt in 1805 and died in 1820, in the age of 115. If its true, hes the oldest Greek recorded. I dont know if it is that reliable though. Δημήτρηss (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You could list him as disputed, in addition to the currently oldest known Greek man. See the Jeanne Calment entry for appropriate formatting. — JFG ^talk 08:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

That would not be appropriate. Not only is the "formatting" for Calment's entry being discussed (elsewhere) the cases are different. Calment is "verified" but is now being questioned (however dubious that questioning is) whereas Liologlu is not "verified" but merely another one of the hundreds/thousands with extreme claims that have never been verified (and almost certainly never will be). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Maria Kononovich

Reverted, again, because it is clearly WP:OR. To claim that someone is the oldest ever in the country requires a citation which states that. As far as I can see the citations for Kononovich state that she is the oldest living not the oldest ever. This can sometimes be lost in translation, so if there is a clearer translation which says "oldest ever" or similar then fine, she can be incluoded. Otherwise it is not only OR but also violate WP:BLP. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean, although that would not be the only case for which cited sources do not assert that a person was the "oldest ever" in their country (see for example Maria Brandes in Slovakia and Carl Mattson in Sweden). I believe the spirit of this "oldest ever" table is to list the "oldest ever reported" persons (except dubious extreme claims of course). After all, even the GRG cannot claim that anybody was the "oldest ever" because the only records they have are those cases that have been declared and investigated. Meanwhile, I have added Kononovich to the "oldest living" list where she clearly belongs. — JFG ^talk 12:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, though, the Gerontology Research Group does continue to verify supercentenarian cases aged 112+. So, if Kononovich isn't verified, then this might be because there is a lack of documents confirming her case. In contrast, someone such as Carl Mattson is a true case (people on the 110 Club forum found his birth record, I believe) who simply isn't verified because he wasn't old enough for the Gerontology Research Group. Futurist110 (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Klavdiya Gadyuchkina

Entry was reverted by DerbyCountyinNZ with the comment that sources were "unreliable". However, one of the sources is a baptismal record of her in church record book of her native settlement near Yaroslavl discovered by genealogists. The photo of this record is also available [19]. How can the original document from the archive be "unreliable"?--95.24.95.40 (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The link provided above is a blog, which is unreliable. The Youtube link cannot be used as Youtube is not a RS. The other link claims she is 111 when the DoB says she was born in Decmeber 1910 making her 110. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

At least she has proven birth records, and YouTube video is one of official Russian TV channel. The difference between her real DoB and her passport DoB is not significant matter as we know the primary source. No other known Russian supercentenarian claimant has DoB confirmed by documents, so she is an oldest ever verified Russian resident. Why do not include her in the list?--95.24.95.40 (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Country flags

@DerbyCountyinNZ: You reverted the flags I added.

1. Can you please point to where exactly in the MOS it specifically says that flags are not used in longevity articles?^[1]
2. Is this not a List of ____ by country article? The tables rows are even headed by the countries!

— Guarapiranga ☎ 11:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not specified in MOSFLAG, it was established by consensus based on MOSFLAG. The discussion is very old and it will take some time to track down the archive, I will do this later tonight (NZ time). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The archive here doesn't yield any results for flags. — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

My memory is rusty after 11 years. The edit removing the flags from this article is here and as per the edit summary is based on MOS:FLAGBIO. This led to a (sometimes heated) discussion which I am still trying to track down as it could have been in any longevity article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

[[20]] is a start. You'll notice I argued for keeping the flags. I changed my mind later. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

And the MOS discussion. Clear support for not using flags in lists with specific reference to longevity articles as prime examples. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

11 years?? Wow. This is really getting old. Time to reconsider. I agree with this comment:

Does the intensive use of flags complicate use of the longevity articles? I think we can say: No. If you look at the oldest variants of the article „List of living supercentarians“, you can see that only the country of residence was given without any flag. In later times the flags were added, and these variants prevailed which wouldn't have been if they wouldn't make the article's use easier. So why is it easier to read the article by using the flags? At first, the corresponding rule says that flags shouldn't be used neither in a continuous text nor an infobox. This rule was observed: There are no flags in the continuous texts, and the lists are no additional infoboxes giving additinal information. It's really on the contrary: The lists are the main informations of the whole article. And so the really question we have to ask is: Does the use of the flags make it easier to use these lists, as in this case this is synonymous with „Does the use of flags make it easier to use the article?“. To get a solution, you only have to compare variants of the lists with and without flags. What do we see? If there are flags we can see in the very first moment that most of the people live in the USA or Japan. We also can easily see those countries where only a few supercentanarians live, like Barbados, Portugal, or Germany. But if we try the same thing with those lists without flags, we see – nothing. United States, Japan, Barbados, it's hard to get an overall view.

— Guarapiranga ☎ 06:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Any proposal to reconsider the status quo should done at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

MOS:DTAB

You reverted my edits bc of redlinks but did not address the problem I had resolved (MOS:DTAB), DerbyCountyinNZ. How about kicking the ball forward instead of just backpaddling?

Consider very carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it?^[1]

— Guarapiranga ☎ 10:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Questions and missing people

Why are three Japanese women listed and not only the oldest one? Why is the oldest Japanese man not listed? Why are three Portuguese women listed and not only the oldest one? Why is the oldest Portuguese man not listed? Why are three British women listed and not only the oldest one? Why is the oldest British man not listed? Why are three US-American women listed and not only the oldest one? Why is the oldest US-American man not listed? Why is the oldest French man listed from Martinique and not from mainland France in Europe? Martinique has a separate section as an dependant territory...

Please answer the questions, many thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8108:41c0:2870:5de8:8555:9bb2:7f4e (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are three Japanese women listed and not only the oldest one?

Should each country list only the eldest? I don't mind, as long as it's the same number for every country.

Why is the oldest Japanese man not listed?

Bc he's not amongst the 3 oldest people (see page title) from Japan. — Guarapiranga ☎ 12:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

In the old version for each country the oldest female and the oldest male person ever was listed which was consensus. What was the reason for a change? When was that discussed? Is this consensus? This article is unfortunately going to get not usable anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8108:41c0:2870:58d4:924a:46bb:c6f4 (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

1. I wasn't aware of that consensus.
2. Before I made any edits to this page, it already showed:
   • 2 men + 1 woman for Belgium
   • 2 men + 1 woman for Canada
   • 2 men + 1 woman for Denmark
   • 1 man + 2 women for Estonia
   • etc

   My impression therefore was that the criterion was to show the 3 oldest people per country.

3. Why should it? Should it also include one of each ethnicity? Or one of each sexual orientation? Or just simply the n oldest people per country as specified by article title?
4. If one wishes to show the oldest people by sex, that's better addressed by adding separate tables by sex, as in Oldest people.

— Guarapiranga ☎ 07:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

For Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia etc. more people were listed, because the oldest one (female or male) was born in the mentioned country and died in another country (emigration), or the oldest one (female or male) was born abroad and died in the mentioned country (immigration), and then the oldest one of each sex, who was born and died in the mentioned country (but only in cases emigrants or immigrants are older). This was the reason that some countries had more than two oldest people mentioned. So, place of birth and death of each sex was important, and this was explained in several footnotes or in brackets (e.g. born in the UK, died in the US and so on). Of course, if we know any oldest people with another sex than male or female of each country, that should be included in that article too... Now this article is not helpful to read anymore, the older versions which I explained and you linked were helpful to read. It is always better to discuss such big changes of articles first before starting to do so... To show the oldest three people of countries we have separate lists of some countries - here even the oldest 100 are listed. --2A02:8108:41C0:2870:6C66:5531:5708:AA70 (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• For Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia etc. more people were listed, because the oldest one (female or male) was born in the mentioned country and died in another country (emigration), or the oldest one (female or male) was born abroad and died in the mentioned country (immigration), and then the oldest one of each sex, who was born and died in the mentioned country (but only in cases emigrants or immigrants are older). This was the reason that some countries had more than two oldest people mentioned. ... Of course, if we know any oldest people with another sex than male or female of each country, that should be included in that article too...
  Wow, what a complex set of criteria! That wasn't apparent at all (either to readers or editors not in the know).
• So, place of birth and death of each sex was important, and this was explained in several footnotes or in brackets (e.g. born in the UK, died in the US and so on).
  It wasn't clear at all that had anything to do with the inclusion criteria.
• Now this article is not helpful to read anymore, the older versions which I explained and you linked were helpful to read.
  Feel free to revert, then. I tried linking this article with the country articles via transclusion, to ease maintenance and ensure consistency, but that now has been mangled by editors who reverted the transclusion labels in the country pages.
• It is always better to discuss such big changes of articles first before starting to do so.
  That's not how Wikipedia works, though. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

it is when you've been advised to do so. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Table format

I have reverted the numerous changes to table formatting introduced by Guarapiranga, especially because relying on transclusions from country-specific articles makes this table dependent on changes in many other pages, which may or may not adopt this editor's preferred format. As of today, some pages have kept the new format, and some have been reverted by various editors. Apologies to @Bart Versieck, Chicdat, DerbyCountyinNZ, Jwkozak91, and TFBCT1:, who have edited the contents since the 22 July version, I'm afraid I don't have time to re-apply your recent changes, and I would not want to make mistakes. If you have a few minutes, please check your recent updates and re-instate whatever new information is appropriate. — JFG ^talk 13:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@JFG:: apologies accepted, and I will check all in due course! Extremely sexy (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Oldest New Zealand man

This source reports that New Zealand's oldest person, Ron Hermann's, died 26 days short of his 110th birthday. New Zealand has never had an independently verified male supercentenarian, or even, as far as I know, a reliably reported one. It seems therefore safe to assume that he is NZ's oldest ever reliably reported man. However he article does not state that and, given that NZ's privacy laws prevent independent verification, it is unlikely that there will ever be any such statement. This makes his inclusion here essentially OR. Are other users OK with such an inclusion? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes.--2A02:8108:41BF:EF28:2552:624A:719B:DDD7 (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)