Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 1

Consensus to merge this article

I am requesting a consensus to decide whether to merge this article with oldest people or not. Note that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that this is not a vote. Explain your reasoning, please. The question for consensus will end after five days if there is enough consensus.

• Support. There is already a list in the article about the oldest people, but some of this article could be merged, except for the trivia and "unverified claims" section. The reason the trivia should not be merged is because lists regarding the topic should be avoided. The reason that the "unverified claims" section shouldn't be merged is obvious: the material should be attributable to a reliable source. It also sounds like speculation. Squirepants101 19:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. As per the initiator and previous voter: indeed. Extremely sexy 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This article should be entirely merged with the oldest people article. I see this article as simply redundant. The oldest people article is also a list -- how many lists of the same thing are needed? -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I was about to propose the same thing myself just before I saw this. (Matt) 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, both articles are lists. My suggestion is to merge the content and name the article list of the oldest people -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 21:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The oldest people article itself was created to split the lists out of the Supercentenarian article [1]. This article is not necessary and oldest people should be reverted to the way it was before. An oldest people article without the oldest people just doesn't make sense. 192.75.88.231 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Full marks for you. Extremely sexy 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm going to close this very soon and merge this, now that there is more consensus. I have re-opened this consensus because of User:Ryoung122. Squirepants101 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Should it be merged vice versa as it is a list? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment

Before we all like sheep run off a cliff supporting this merger, I must say I disagree and have several points to consider:

A. This article was originally started as a longer explication of the "Oldest People of All Time" list on the "Oldest People" page. Please note that the "Oldest People" article is NOT a list. It is a COLLECTION OF LISTS along with explanatory texts. Thus, we have:

--World's Oldest Person --Oldest Living Man

--Oldest of all Time (nearly all women) --Oldest Men of All Time --Nationality records

Further, there needs to be an explanation of methodologies, which is why a mere 'list' is not appropriate. Why aren't we including the longevity claims here? What does it take to qualify?

B. It seems the author started the "List of the oldest people" as a one-list, longer version of "Oldest of All Time". Note for sake of brevity and summary, the list on the "Oldest People" page only goes down to age 115 years 0 days. Clearly, we could use a longer version, perhaps a 'top 100' in a separate article. We could link the 'main article.' Note that 'main articles's are NOT an excuse for total deletion. Check out an article such as WWI, there is always a summary of the main article on the linking page.

Note that we already have a situation with a 'main article' for 'oldest by nationality' with a short, table-ized summary on the main page. This strategy would make sense, as it would allow the user looking for a quick answer to find it on the main page, and those interested in a little more detail can click on the extra link.

C. Since the data is less than 20% duplicative, I see no reason for a merger or a deletion.

D. However, should one advocate a merger, we need to discuss 'which way' the merger should go. Again, I prefer 'Oldest People' over 'List of the Oldest People' because it is not one list, and we have in-text explanations, so 'Oldest People' is more than a mere list. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example: Western Front

The article gives a brief summary and a link to a longer article. We should use the same format here. The main article, "Oldest People," would be the only "Master" article, making it easier to find additional articles with longer lists.

Sincerely, Robert Young Senior Consultant for Gerontology Guinness World Records → R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Again below, we see a short summary of 'gas warfare' with a link to "main article: poison gas." An additional article is never a reason to delete the first one, or to delete the summary on the first one.

[edit] Gas warfare

An artist's rendition of Canadian troops at the Second Battle of Ypres.Main article: Poison gas in World War I Despite the German plans to maintain the stalemate with the French and British, German commanders planned an offensive at the Belgian town of Ypres, which the British had captured in November 1914 during the First Battle of Ypres. This was in order to divert attention away from major offensives in the Eastern Front while disrupting Franco-British planning and to test a new weapon. After a two-day bombardment, on 22 April, the Germans released chlorine gas onto the battlefield which drifted into the British trenches.[14] The green-yellow cloud asphyxiated the defenders and those in the rear fled in panic creating an undefended four-mile-wide gap in the Allied line. However, the Germans were unprepared for the level of their success and lacked sufficient reserves to exploit the opening. Canadian troops quickly arrived and drove back the German advance. This Second Battle of Ypres marked the first large-scale use of chemical weapons, where 170 tonnes were dropped on the allied lines, resulting in the deaths of 5,000 men within minutes, despite being prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1899.

The gas attack was repeated two days later and caused a three-mile withdrawal of the Franco-British line. But the opportunity had been lost. The success of this attack would not be repeated, as the Allies countered by introducing gas masks and other countermeasures. An example of the success of these measures came a year later, on 27 April, when 25 miles (40 km) to the south of Ypres, at the Battle of Hulluch, the 16th (Irish) Division's troops were able to withstand determined German gas attacks.

Sincerely Robert Young → R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. My opinion is:

• Rgarding the Oldest people article, merge section By nation of death or current residence into article National longevity recordholders. Maybe merge section Emigrant records into tha article to, but it is unlikely.
• Merge sections Among the oldest ever, The oldest men ever, The oldest people currently living, and The oldest men currently living. (Living people on the listed can be Italic and Bold
• The section Official oldest living person should be kept, but I'm not sure what to do with Official oldest living man section (To be fair would we have to put "offical oldest women section too? This would create to many lists).

Then after this, we would have three lists: A list to show how the title of "current oldest person" was passed, a National longevity recordholders which has its own article, and a list of the oldest people. Or, perhaps an article entitled List of supercentenarians since there is an article called List of centenarians.

• This is just my opinion. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 01:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is better to have quick, table-ized answers all in one place. The extra articles are of lesser importance, but there for those who care for more detailed info. As I have shown with the WWI articles, it is always important to have a master, summative article with all the most-important information, with links to the smaller articles (i.e. individual battles). Most people know about WWI, but how many have heard of f.e. Chemin des Dames? Thus, to 'grow' the data must be organized from the most basic to the most detailed. We have it that way now, and it's been like this over a year. I see no need to change it. R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Expand to Top 100

I'd like to see someone expand the list to a "Top 100".R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay: I will do so, Robert. Extremely sexy 15:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be missing loads of people who have reached 113. If we are to include ALL people who have lived to 113, then the list should be 120+ people long, not about 100. See here, and here (half way down the page). Rrsmac 18:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, but I have to delete a lot of your additions, and swap them for other people who were older. Extremely sexy 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Elena Slough birthdate

Elena Slough's birthdate should be July 4, and her age four days older: July 8 was a newspaper reporting error. R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you now found definite proof for this, since both you and Louis Epstein always stated "July 8th" instead of "July 4th", my dear friend? Extremely sexy 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

USA 53 of top 100 (or 55 of top 102)

I wonder if a 'top 100' is enough, or 113+? If we go too low, the list loses some effect...hmmm....R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think 113+ should be the marker perhaps. It makes no sense at the moment with 102 in the list, and roughly 113 and a half as the minimum age. Either that, or cut it back. Rrsmac 14:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just brought it back to a literal top 100, but Kott isn't in Louis Epstein's list at all, and Chatmon was a year younger according to him: any comments on this from you, Robert? Extremely sexy 23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again, Bart. Kott is in Louis's list as '115'.

Also, Chatmon's age of 114 is based on the 1900 census, which I consider more reliable than the '1885' citation.R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I like the 'top 100' idea because it will get increasingly harder to make it on the list. For example, Bertha Fry will now have to make it to '138' days past 113 to get on...but Florence Finch would have to make it to '142' days if Bertha makes it first....R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd: I didn't find Kott at all last time I checked, but why "born in 1879" for him and "born in 1880" for you anyway? Extremely sexy 20:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Guinness said '1879' but the 1880 census lists her as 2 months old. Louis uses 1879 because he wants to wait until Guinness admits they made a mistake more than a decade ago.R Young {^yakł_talk} 02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Which they will never do, since they still maintain Izumi's claimed (but probably fake) birth date of 1865 too. Extremely sexy 14:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Guinness told me they would retract the Izumi case if the government of Japan did so first...which isn't likely to happen. 72.152.100.171 09:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right in saying so, man. Extremely sexy 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Race

I am uncomfortable with the column in the table which is titled "Race". I am not a vigilant follower of everything that is "PC" but I think accuracy is something that Wikipedia thrives on. The great majority of the entries on this table for "Race" are "B", "W", or "O", which I presume mean "Black", "White" and "Oriental". I can't find any key first off. The other two who don't fall into this category are "H" and "I", which I assume are for "Hispanic" and "Indian". Fistly, without any offence intended, doesn't Emiliano Mercado Del Toro qualify as "W" as a descendant of presumably Spanish forebears rather than "H" when Iberian Super-C's are classed as "W".

Greetings,

Where known, the 'race' classification is according to family wishes and/or public information. In the cases of Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan and Maria Capovilla, the family said they were 'white.' In Mr. Del Toro's case, the family did not say but he appeared to be darker. I think it would be erroneous to assume he was 'white'.R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Lucy D'Abreu is classed as "I" which I assume means "Indian". Her maiden name was D'Souza which is a Portuguese name, as was her married name. I don't know her heritage; nothing is mentioned in any article on her I have read. All we know is that she was born in India. Here we get into grey area.

Many coastal residents of India have European names, in part due to colonies such as Goa. The family indicated she was Indian.R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The list of the oldest people is biased in one way. It only features (almost entirely) absolutely verifiable cases. This means that the majority of featured people are from a small number of countries where records are easily verifiable.

Like a Fortune 500 list? Other countries need to 'clean up their act' if they want on the list.R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

However, what is very interesting is that as these countries are ethnically diverse and have been (particularly USA) for many decades, we are seeing that this is evidently no disparity between longevity and so-called "races". This is not like a list for "10 best times in 100metres sprint for men" or "10 best 1500metre swimmers of all time", which may not only take anatomical factors into account but social ones too. But then again, saying that, anatomy and "nature and nurture" must figure in longevity.

Also, who is to say how many of the list are not of mixed race? How do we work that one out? What I am saying is that the fact that this list (incomplete as it may be without Russian or Chinese entries) is very ethnically diverse. You could not take a race and say that "they" live longer.

"Race" is considered by many to be a social construct. Biologically, there are gradations of variation but a line cannot be drawn (National Geographic did an article on this recently). I.e., we can determine genetically whether someone is European or African in clear-cut cases but not in borderline cases (i.e. mixed heritage).R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that I can only talk about a parity between "races" over longevity by virtue of seeing the "Race" column on this page so in some ways this is a self-defeating argument but I don't think we should have a "Race" column. It is possibly assumed and inaccurate; and what exactly does it prove? I think we should celebrate that we have a list of "greatest ever in human history" which may be possibly broken by someone from any of a diverse set of ethnic backgrounds.

For one, I think the "race" column helps us NOT to assume...should we assume that Susie Gibson was 'black' because she was Mississippi or that Luce Maced was 'white' because she was from France, we'd be wrong.R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Therefore I think we should remove the "Race" column in the "List of the oldest people" table.

This is my opinion. What does anyone else think? (unsigned comment)

I have to say I agree with you. Extremely sexy 23:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add it, but I don't see a reason to delete it. After all, if we're to have Moses Hardy as the 'last African-American veteran or WWI' or Jackie Robinson as 'breaking the baseball color line,' then race is still important to many.R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your very informed reply Robert. When I wrote my opinion, I was not aware of your profession and I hope you don't take offence at my suggestion that the list is biased to a few countries. I was using the word "biased" in a literal sense. I mean it as a statement of fact, not a criticism. I agree that the reason the list is "biased" is that only certain countries have kept clear records. I am a British person and an amateur genealogist so I am happy that records in my country are fairly good going back a long way. I never said that the "race" column was offensive to me, just that it could be seen as such if not overseen with absolute vigilance. I'm glad we've debated this matter. Perhaps we should leave the column for now and review it if someone does take offence. Rrsmac 01:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the reason why this page should include the race of the people on the list. Why should I care what race the oldest people on this planet had? I find it more interesting from what country those people came from, how old they became/ are, and when they were born. That's it. I mean, we could also add straight or gay, smoker or non-smoker, religion, or even favourite colour to the list, but what difference does that make? I think "race" is just irrelevant, and a little bit offending. --Robster1983 14:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It should be removed. Anyone disagree? -|AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that someone is 'uncomfortable' with it actually means it is a worthwhile label. More than that, however, there is a scientific basis for inclusion: many of the longevity theories of the past were that persons of certain nationality or race lived longer than others. With the current format, we can see the mix of races and nationalities and conclude that, statistically, there really isn't much difference, if any...the major differences seem to be 'gender' and 'sample size.' This argues that the next thing to do is to add a 'gender' category, to demonstrate how prevalent females are amongst the top-100. In fact, it might be said that much media coverage of the 'oldest' has been biased in favor of males. Showing the true gender ratio makes a lot of sense.Ryoung122 04:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Robert (wow: there's a first), so write this down. Extremely sexy 09:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, there is a 'gender' listing ('sex'). Perhaps the two small columns should be next to each other (on the right), however.

In actuality, I find the 'nationality' to be slightly offensive...it runs the risk of jingoism, and ignores the truth that we are all more alike than different. Also, 'nationality' papers over historical truths (i.e. many people in France are Italian immigrants). Yet I understand there is some common connection: for example, in the UK the healthcare system and climate are generally considered to be worse off than much of Mediterranean Europe (Spain, Portugal, southern France, and Italy especially). So, there can be arguments for and against any labeling.

I disagree with gay/straight, however, because most people born 110+ years ago lived at a time when 'coming out' was considered unconscionable, something people were thrown in jail for (Oscar Wilde). Thus the data wouldn't even be available.Ryoung122 04:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that it had been made pretty clear "races" did not exist; I just don't see the point of the race column... white race, hispanic race...doesn't make any sense to science, there can be more differences between one white person and one hispanic person than between two white persons, genetically speaking I mean. And what about "race" mixes"? Some use the expression "mixed race persons", but it would mean that half black/half white is the same "race" as half hispanic/half indian...etc. This is not serious. What's the point of putting a "race" column in a scientific interest, when the word race has no scientific meaning whatsoever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.194.50.125 (talk • contribs)

Greetings,

PLEASE SIGN your posts. And quit with the arrogance. Sociologists and others debate whether races 'exist' or even the meaning of race...all the while biological/genetic testing can identify race-based differences. They can do testing and determine if your ancestors came from Europe, China, or Africa. Arguing that race doesn't 'exist' because the boundaries are 'fuzzy' is like arguing that rainbows don't exist because you can't tell the exact spot where the colors change. Perhaps 'cities' don't exist because we can't tell where the 'city' ends and the 'country' begins.

I suppose 'dog breeds' don't exist either due to the existence of 'mutts.' It's like saying that 'red flowers don't exist' because when you cross a red flower with a white one, you get a pink flower. Sorry, that argument clearly doesn't hold water.

Further, the public holds interest in race: otherwise, they wouldn't mention Jackie Robinson and the 'color line', would they?Ryoung122 10:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What? Can you give any good proof of that? That sounds just like something a stereotypical american racist would say. I do not think there's any reason to show what "race" a certain person has/had. It's extremely stupid. Why should USAs constant racism be spread on wikipedia english? The majority of all english speakers does not live in USA. Writing out the "race" of someone is clearly the POV of a racist. Ran4 22:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the above opinion sounds like an anti-U.S. rant. Also, the USA's population is five times that of the UK. Third, despite nations like France trying to not list the race of persons, it is evident that interest in persons such as Julia Sinedia were partly due to race. It would be incorrect to assume the USA is the only multi-racial/multi-cultural nation. Should we assume that all French people are 'white' (i.e. Gaels Monfils or that people are completely oblivious to race when it comes to people like Serena Williams? Serena herself acknowledges Althea Gibson. Clearly, there is a widespread interest in race. Listing 'facts' should not be interpreted as 'opinion.' Please, spare me.Ryoung122 22:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm from the UK and not racist, but I think listing people's race is relevant in an article like this. It shows that race is not a major factor in longevity, and implies that it is not a major factor in general behaviour and lifestyle. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles about black people mention thier colour - in many cases it is what's interesting about them, being the first black/Chinese/Indian to achieve something - so why should this article be any different? Ignoring racial situations is far more racist than acknowledging them. --MartinUK 10:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree then. Extremely sexy 22:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)