Talk:Oldest people/Archive 10

Um, can anyone verify Mary Elizabeth Sheridan?
She's listed on IMDb and recently had her 121st birthday but she's nowhere to be seen on this wikipedia page. Can anyone do some research or verification? Link  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ critikaL (talk • contribs) 13:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Before any such process is started, you should first confirm this person is actually still alive. I strongly doubt that, but in the case she is, it would of course be worth trying to validate her. However, if the birthdate is correct in IMDB, she had her 111th birthday, not 121st.(Yubiquitoyama (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Oldest people in the world graph
I see that Jughead has added a pretty nifty graph which represents all known oldest people at a given time from 1830 to the present date. But I can see a few problems right off the top - for one, the chart should start from 1955 which is really where the record starts in any substantive manner, as that is when the record started to be kept and subsequently amended back to. While we may be able to compile a list of oldest people going back into the 19th century, besides the fact that patchy birth records make such a compilation somewhat meaningless, any compilation beyond what already exists on this page would be original research.

Secondly, it is hard to really understand what the graph represents, with a lot of tiny dots. Close clusters of dots really represent the fact that record-holders held the title briefly, a low cluster means someone held the record for a long time. Which was only really true after 1955. The chart implies that Betsy Baker who is represented by the dot circa 1955 held the record for a whopping 25 years, which is obviously not so. And thirdly, the current record-holder just turned 115, yet is shown as being 116.

My suggestion would be to keep the vertical axis as is, but to create a bar graph for individual years of BIRTH starting with the first record-holder Betsy Baker's birth year, 1842, draw a bar for the maximum age attained for any person born in that year and do the same for each year up to 1892, the most recent birth year for which no people are proven still alive. And this would not be original research, as there is a page with this list:. There is someone for each year save 1845 there. Canada Jack (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thanks for pointing out those mistakes, Jack. I'll try to improve the graph soon. Fell free to offer any more suggestions. Jughead.z(1) (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Maria Mika
Maria Mika was born in Chynov know a part of Czechia and at her birth part of Bohemia - a part of the Austrian-Hungarian empire. So she is an emigrated case... --Statistician (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No she isn't - where did she emigrate from and to? Country boundaries may have changed, but the term "emigrate" refers to the movement of an individual, not of national boundaries. Canada Jack (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And, more to the point, "Bohemia" was not a country then or now! Indeed, she was born in Austria/Hungary, and died in Austria, one of the successor states to Austria/Hungary. To "emigrate" one has to move from one country to another, and it is hard to make the case here that that is what she did.Canada Jack (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary was one state so why divide in austria und hungary for longvity? The Austrian-Hungarian Empire had more parts than austria and hungary - moravia and glacia for example. Btw.: If she went to austria after the start from czechoslovacia (1918) would it be and emigration? --Statistician (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact remains she was born in Austria-Hungary and died in Austria - one of the successor states. So, to be accurate, we'd have to note the country she was born in and the country she died in. The way you had it was depicting her as having been born in a country that didn't exist (the Czech Republic) - and she wasn't even living in - until the very year she died!


 * Since national boundaries have an unfortunate tendency not to remain fixed over the lifetimes of many of these people, in most cases we simply incorporate the country of death as the national record, if said person more or less was resident in where that country is or was. Otherwise, we'd have situations like, say, the South African record-holder, who was born in what was a British colony but died in the independent nation of RSA. The same could be said for the Australian record-holder.


 * How about Finland? The record-holder there was born when it was part of the Russian Federation, should we "correct" that to say she "emigrated" from Russia to Finland? How about Norway's record-holder, born in what was then a union with Sweden? If you were a Pole or a German, born in a part of the country whose borders shifted or were incorporated into another country, are you an "emigrant"? My ex-girlfriend's German mother might take issue with her being called a Pole. If she lived to 115 and died in what is now Germany, by your logic she would have been an emigrant. Most Germans would probably disagree.


 * In all these cases, even though the country where a person was born no longer is the same country they died in, we don't consider them "emigrants."

_______________

My point is that if it was a complet area under a others rule (like the kingdom of bohemia) it was a "special" area. We don't speak of states that where divided between different states (like poland) or shifting bonderies. And btw.: The last time a german state got a part of poland was in the tirth polish dividing... And why then is "Anne Primout" an emigrated case? At her birth algeria was a part of france (Not only a colony!). Btw.: What is with colonies? Why are they emigarted cases by you logic if they died in the ruling nation? Think about Lucy d'Abreu.

Do you know when Mika went from the bohemian part of austria-hungary to an other? --Statistician (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mika was born in a country called Austria-Hungary. She died in a country called Austria. You said she was born in the Czech Republic. That state did not exist until 1994, the year she died. You have failed to make a convincing case here, statistician. Not sure what "special" is supposed to mean here. The area in question was ruled by Austrians, she died in an area ruled by Austrians. It is a little hard to argue as you do that we should consider who happened to be ruling the area 112 years - a country which only came into existence 112 years later - as the country she "emigrated" from.


 * In the end, even if you have a point here, the sources we have consider Mika to be Austrian, not Czech, not Bohemian. So to consider her an emigrant, even if your argument is compelling, would be to engage in original research.


 * As for Primout and Algeria, as far as I can tell, she in fact was living in Algeria after independence in 1962, so by any measure, she emigrated from said country! You have a better argument with D'Abreau in terms of India/the UK, but I again point to the other various sources here which consider her an emigrant, and to change her status would be engaging in original research. And I am not sure about your comments re: Germany and Poland. I simply stated that my ex's mother, born about 1925, was born in "Germany" but that section of Germany is now Poland. Do we consider the shifting borders to declare that, if she set a longevity record dying in Germany that she'd be a "Polish emigrant"? I think not. Consult this page to see that Poland annexed the eastern part of Germany after WWII, where the person I refer to was born several decades earlier. Canada Jack (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the details of all these cases, but I can state my opinions in principle.

Katherine Plunket was born Ireland, UK and died Ireland. She should not be an emigrated case (and isn't). Lucy D'Abreu is slightly different - she actually moved rather than just a boundary change. I would list her as an emigrated case even though India was ruled by the UK, she did move country. In fact she lived in Ireland for most of her life and then died in Scotland. As for Maria Mika, I don't know the details, but if she was born in Austria-Hungary and died in Austria then that's merely a boundary change. If she had actually moved from Austria-Hungary to for example Germany, then she has emigrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiameseTurtle (talk • contribs) 18:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier, we can argue back and forth on this one, but the people we cite for these records consider her to be the Austrian record-holder and not an emigrant despite being born in what is now part of the Czech Republic. In other words, to list her in the emigrant record section would be to engage in original research even if we accept Statistician's argument. I've suggested a rationale for having her not considered an emigrant, but in the end we can only report what others have determined to be the records, even if some of these calls seem to be arbitrary. Canada Jack (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstuoo me. I don't want to make cases after border-changes - and I wroted this before. We talk her about nations and not nationalitis. If someone was born in country A and the place know is part of a other one (call it B), we all agree, that she was born in B. And you are correct with czechia - if she went to austia afters 1919 it must be a czechoslowakia-emigrant case like the Primout Algeria-France - I didn't know if Primout went to France befor or after 1962 so I asked why she was considered as a emigrant and now I know it. To write Czechia and not czechoslowakia was my fauld and I'm sorry for that. And with this I hope you understand what I meaned. The problem about austria-hungary is that it was a strange state with more than one kingdom - bohemia was a kingdom to, for example. And I wanted to give credit to that fact that bohemia was a kingdom of it's own under austrian rulership so please don't get me wronge. Did I see it write that we agree in a czechoslowakian emigrant case if the went to austria after the 1919? If it is so I will do some research. If it wasn't so it would be Anna Stephan: http://www.rp-online.de/public/article/aktuelles/panorama/deutschland/15840 By the way: What to do with someone born in A, went to B and died in C? Emigarted cases for A and B? And: If a new country was born are border changed and the person was shortly expelted or went out, it is in my opinion no emigration for the new country in this place because the it was because of the new/changed country that the person went to an other country. @Katherine Plunket: It is right, that she isn't an emigrante, but as place of birth should correctly be writen: Ireland (UK). --Statistician (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that you may have some good arguments here, and I've wondered about Plunket myself. But the bottom line here is that to alter what the researchers from whom we have these lists from would be to engage in original research even if their reasoning is flawed and inconsistent and ours is not. It is not up to us, in other words, to alter the conclusions of what others have done, even if those conclusions are flawed. In the case of places like Ireland, sometimes nationalist sentiments come into play, so to label Plunket a UK citizen even if that was technically accurate for most of her life would ignore the sentiment within Ireland that she is considered there to have been "Irish" her entire life. That may be a partial explanation for some of the inconsistencies here when we are considering nationalities and nations of birth. Canada Jack (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I made some research and sadly we don't know we Maria Mika (mother languag czechia) went to austria, so we can't say that it was after the founding of czechoslovacia. So put Anna Stephan as oldest validated emigrant from cuechoslovakia? Because she's the oldest we can be sure living in czechoslovacia. --87.165.238.212 (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We have to go with what the gerontologists have concluded. We can't change that conclusion. Canada Jack (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What conclusion? Anna Stephan wasn't born in germany as listed in the grg-list. I'm one the run to correct this but that need time. --Statistician (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have information that Stephan was not born in Germany, again, that is original research as it differs from what these people say, so we can't change that here. But why not get in contact with the Guinness people? Where was she actually born, what town or city? If you convince them to change it, then we can change it. Try Robert Young ryoung122@yahoo.com   Canada Jack (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in contact but changes need time. She was born in Altensee - today in Czechia. --Statistician (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Table dates
Do they not lead on from one another due to time zone differences?SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosa Rein oldest person in Switzerland ever
111-year-old Rosa Rein reached the age of 111 years 88 days on June 20, 2008 and surpassed the old national record of 111y 87d of Emma Duvoisin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.127.98 (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but Rosa Rein isn't validated. I hope we can do that sune but it isn't jet. --Statistician (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Doña Anita
According to the newspaper, she turned 118 years old. She born on June 22, 1890. Is the link to the newspaper valid to update the list?

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/517150.html

206.104.167.25 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, this would be an unverified claim, and could go here. This would be for Mexico? Canada Jack (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, from Colima, Mexico. The newspaper indicates that documents were sent to the Guiness World Records, so at least there is a birth certificate, lets wait what the response is.


 * Además, prosiguen los trámites para que el récord Guinness la registre como la mujer más longeva del mundo.


 * "Y aunque el proceso no ha sido fácil ni simple, ya se enviaron a Londres los documentos que se requerían, por lo que sólo falta esperar la respuesta, deseando todos que sea positiva".


 * Doña Ana María Pérez González nació el 22 de junio de 1890, ...


 * 206.104.167.25 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Riudavets
Do you really think Joan Riudavets should be considered the oldest Spanish person ever? He didn't even live on the Spanish mainland. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 01:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But Minorca is still a part of Spain. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oldest living women/people lists
Now that I see the oldest living man now is in the top 10 list of living people, I hereby resurrect my argument that we should name these two lists "Top 10 women" and "Top 10 men". Why? Because we have, with the lists as they stand, the seeming priority in seeing a ten-deep list of men, but not a similar list for the top 10 women, even though the 10th-oldest woman would be close to two years older than the #10 man! It has been argued before that it is far more interesting to see a top 10 overall list than one limited to women, another to men, but I counterargue it would be instantly apparent who the oldest living person is anyway.

And, I agree it looks a bit better to have the two lists - 10 oldest people, 10 oldest men - but only when the two lists are exclusive. When they aren't, such as right now, then we we should have the male/female lists. If more men make the top ten lists, then the logic of keeping the lists as they are now becomes even less tenable as it makes little sense to keep track of the oldest men while ignoring the same requirement for women. Canada Jack (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a different but related point to make. I think the alltime list shouldn't be 115+ because we now have 24 names and in a year maybe 26. It's far too cumbersome. It should be 116+ or Top 10, which currently happen to be the same list. 84.13.47.181 (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Captain celery


 * Why not keep it 115+ as is (i.e., a list of those who pass an arbitrary number) then when another person reaches the list, make it a top 25 list (i.e., a list of arbitrary length)? Canada Jack (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I just think it's too long, and 115 is not as impressive as it once was. 84.13.47.181 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Captain celery


 * I think the lists should be kept as the 10 oldest people and men for this reason: People who come to view this page are likely to want to see a list of the currently oldest people in the world as opposed to the 10 oldest women, and your average reader is not going to want to amalgamate the 2 lists in their head to make it. Secondly, I think having top 10 people/women/men lists is too much and too much repetition, so I think that it out of the question. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If that is so, then what is the point of having a separate list for men? If those two men currently tied for second on the men's list outlast enough of the older women, we could see three men on the top ten list. It's not outside the realm of possibility. And the rationale for the need for a 10-deep list for men - while no similar list exists on this page for women - becomes ever more creaky. The fact that, statistically, men don't live as long and therefore need a separate list isn't the point - the point is why do we need to know all ten of the oldest men, but only as many women who happen to make the over-all 10 list (currently 9, could be 7 down the road)? The solution is either to have two lists separated by sex, or to have a single list of oldest people. Canada Jack (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I can see the point of having the list at 115+ getting long in the near future, I also think 10 is to few. The top 15 or 20 seems like a better number. --Npnunda (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also go along with Canada Jack about making it a top 25 list. 10 is to few. --Npnunda (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that we only need list the Top Ten for consistency. Four lists of the Top Ten men/women living/all-time would be the most sensible. If someone wants to see where men feature in the overall lists they can refer to the List of the verified oldest people or List of living supercentenarians. The only potential difficulty is, as has been discussed previously, when there are less than 10 male supercentenarians. However it seems that this will become less frequent and is a bridge that can be crossed when we come to it. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. We wouldn't have top 25s for every list. It just looks bad. The chronological list is necessarily long but the others don't have to be. People can cross reference. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone on Wikipedia are complete idiots. Top 10 women of all-time would include Barnes, who was possibly older, and then Mortensen could slot in to the male list. As far as living men goes, we're currently on 11, with Borroni to come next month, and a likely Japanese influx in September, when they release their new list. Even with a numbers collapse we could use Fernandes, since Portugal are just behind Germany in terms of reliability. 89.242.218.62 (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Captain celery


 * I stongly agree with "Canada Jack" and "Npnunda". Extremely sexy (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the 25-deep all-time list, we may get that 25th 115+ person as early as September, so perhaps if and when, we can change the title of the "Oldest people ever (115+)" list to "Oldest people ever (Top 25)." Assuming of course there is consensus. Seems to be a sensible thing to do before it becomes too unwieldy. Canada Jack (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said before, I would go along with Canada Jack for top 25+ --Npnunda (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Me too (just to make sure). Extremely sexy (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Country of residence
Is it REALLY necessary to include the state/region/whatever of residence? Surely the country is sufficient, if anyone wants to know more information they can look at the article of the person concerned. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That was discussed. The concenses then was to keep the states/provedence. --Npnunda (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That discussion was on a different page and, for what it's worth, this page is already cluttered and messy enough as it is, so I believe that it's a double reason to remove them here. The country where a person is from is relevant for this page, but not the state/province. Also, I think a lot of the highlighting is redundant/unnecessary as well, particularly in light of the fact that living people are already bolded. Cheers, CP 00:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Paul, I agree with you about the highlighting being unnecessary/redundant. After reading your comment, I've thought about the states/providence thing again. I have looked at this page again and you are right it is kind of messy and cluttered. I still think It's important to keep the states/prov on List of living supercentenarians but on a page like this with so many tables and different things it can be a "information overload". Maybe it would be best to remove them from this page. --Npnunda (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It stems from people adding the US state. I can kind of understand someone wanting to point out that Seattle and Tampa, or San Diego and Boston, are a long way apart. But then other people, such as myself, don't want to revert the changes, and so feel compelled to do the same thing for Japan (Hokkaido and Kyushu) etc. Similarly notes are added for those without articles, and then well meaning completists do the same for those with articles. But not everyone on the main page can have an article. I didn't agree with the notability purge by the people who decided that this article was what most needed changing on Wikipedia. But for some people, especially the innumerable Japanese cases, we've hardly got anything to go on. 89.242.218.62 (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I think that this whole page needs to be revamped. It needs agreed-upon standards, better referencing, a major stylistic cleanup and a thorough checking for NPOV (as happened with List of living supercentenarians). I may try to start working on this come August but, in any case, the article needs more than a few fixes. Cheers, CP 00:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)