Talk:Oldest people/Archive 8

150-year-olds
Are the authorities for this article simply off base or missing the facts? There are several documented cases of people living into their 150's. There are documented cases of it, at least, in south central Asia. 68.14.108.62 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you need to look up 'documented' in a dictionary. If these documents exist, it's surprising that Robert has never told us about them. And documents or not, nobody has ever lived to 130, let alone 150. 80.2.16.73 19:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Captain celery
 * So it definitely is. Extremely sexy 21:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You can CHOOSE to believe in stories of 150-year-old people, just like you can choose to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Vishnu, or whatever. Just don't call it validated and don't call it science. No documents or not, you're so far off base that it's like insisting the Earth is flat. Whatever. Ryoung122 06:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are documented cases of it, we would like to see it. Otherwise, it isn't evidence until there is evidence. Anyways, this has nothing to do with what if Tanabe died today, so I moved this as a new topic. Neal 14:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC).

I think in this case the redesignation is justified. I don't know if people are just goading us or they really believe this stuff. I think there might be a few shattered illusions about Santa Claus now though. 80.2.16.73 20:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Captain celery
 * What: you mean he really doesn't exist (tears)? Extremely sexy 18:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Top 11
I see that Louis de Cazenave has been put up again in 11th. It could be argued that Nicholas Kao shows no sign of being validated, but as has been stated before, there's a strong chance that he is the age claimed. So this raises the old chestnut of whether we should list 109 year olds if they're in the top 10, or supercentenarians if they're outside it. What if Harvey Hite and Lazarre Ponticelli reach 110 before any of the others die? Statitsically it's unlikely but that would mean a top 13. Why should Elizabeth Stefan, Astrid Zachrison and Mary Ray not be on the main page? Captain celery 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We're in a base 10 system, we should stick with the top 10 because it's the most logical place to draw the line. Adding in 11 males but 10 people overall might give some credibility to Robert Young's "bias" theory. I've removed and I think that it should stay that way (and yes, I know that you didn't put it up there CC, just explaining the rationale for my decision). Cheers, CP 21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the top 10. Whomever IP address (89.159.94.77) that added the 11th must have 11 fingers. Whether or not someone like him is capable of conversation, (so we could hear his side of the story), would be another thing. Nevertheless, the 10 stays. Neal 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well: I changed it into what it used to be => 110+ or top 10. Extremely sexy 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why did you add back in #11? You're not allowed to just fly in the face of consensus on talk pages. Cheers, CP 13:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Bart you apparently added an 11th. Hmm - so it seems Bart supports the vandalism of top 11 instead of top 10. Neal 14:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Neal, that is a misuse of the word 'vandalism'... Ryoung122 03:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * '110+ or top 10' doesn't help, because it means either Cazenave is in, or he's out, which is what we had to decide in the first place. I'm not taking the law into my own hands here. As Paul said, I started this topic to see if we could find a consensus. It's obviously a true case but I think it's overzealous to add it to the main page now. If he's doing as well as reported then he'll make it anyway. And if it's 110+ for men, then why not 113+ overall? Captain celery 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong: he is always in, since it's either 110+ OR a top 10, just depending on how many men reached 110: got it? Extremely sexy 22:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's a Top 10 only, he's NOT in it because there are 10 people older than him, therefore he is number 11 and not in the Top 10. The original "110+ or top 10" debate was not about seeing how many 110 year old males we could add to this page, it was about whether to include a full compliment of 10 or to stop it at 110 (ie. if there were only 7 110+ males, would we stop at 7 or add 3 that were less than 110). Bart, you haven't addressed any of the concerns brought up on this page. Everyone here seems to agree that the Top 10, for a variety of reasons, is best. Let me add one more: if we only have the Top 10 oldest people overall on this page (at least, the ones currently living) then why have 11 males? I am removing the entry per the consensus in this discussion. I would also like to remind you that another reversion will be your cap of the three-revert rule. Cheers, CP 22:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * '110+ or top 10' doesn't prioritise the former over the latter, as the original debate illustrates. It means one 'or' the other. He could equally be left off. So in any case it would need rephrasing. Because to have more or less than 10 depending on who reaches 110, puts the list at the whim of progress. Just as 50 years ago you'd be lucky to have 1 living male supercentenarian, in another 50 years they may be as common as female ones are today. Forward thinking, but I might still be on these pages then.

If people want to see all the living supercentenarians, then we have a seperate page for that. Alltime records are a bit different, because largely they are not ongoing. However I think that the overall alltime list should also be top 10, like the male one. '115+' yields 23 names, which is somewhat cumbersome. 115 may have lost some of its luster as a special age and we have a top 100 for them anyway. Now the bar has been raised to 116, and conveniently that equates to the top 10. It will do so for at least another 18 months, unless there is another Maria Capovilla out there. Captain celery 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it should be a Top 10 Ever, and Top 10 Living, men and women, just for consistency. If there are less than 10 men living at any point (increasingly unlikely) it would surely not be that difficult to find next oldest. Otherwise a note could be added saying something like "Unknown, awaiting confirmation" and maybe a footnote listing apossible contenders. DerbyCountyinNZ 22:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, 'top 10 men only' and 'top 10 women only' is fine. Because sometimes, the top 10 women and men, could be only women. If the oldest man in the world is the 20th oldest person, what's wrong with top 10 men only? Anyways, I don't see a point in top 11 men. And yes, the 10th oldest man could be 109.. Neal 23:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops! Yes, that's what I meant...Top 10 Ever (anyone), Top 10 Ever (men only), Top 10 Living (anyone), Top 10 Living (men only).Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 23:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User CP, I don't think it is proper to 'declare consensus' and then 'find' Mr Versieck in 'violation'...the original idea of 'top 10 or 110+' was all 110+ males or, if there were less than 10, then at least 10 places listed. The original 'overall' list was 'top 10 or 113+'. One reason is that recent statistics have shown the number of 110+ validated males has ranged from as low as 4 to as many as 16, while the 113+ overall numbers have been similar (from 4 to 14 in recent years). I realize that it would be easier to just do a 'top 10' and that's it, but on the other hand, the fact that several people wanted to list an 11th person suggests that there is not complete consensus on this issue. I note that, once again, you employed an extremely negative, scorched-Earth policy. You declared consensus even before some people had a chance to comment. Further, I'm quite sure Bart is aware of the three-revert rule. Apologies to Mr. Versieck would be in order. Ryoung122 03:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * User Bart did not contribute to the changes until after he made the revisions and there was no dissenting votes to keeping it to only 10 people on this talk page thus there was a "consensus." Furthermore, weren't you the one complaining of a "Pro-male bias" on the List of living supercentenarians page? Why 11 for males but only 10 overall Robert? By the way, I love the personal attack of "you employed an extremely negative, scorched-Earth policy" which is highly incorrect given that my revisions were based on the existing comments on the talk page. Notice how I didn't revert it this time now that's there is dissension? I do not owe an apology to Bart because pointing out that he might approach violation of a rule is a VERY friendly thing to do when it would be in my personal benefit to see him blocked for violating it by not pointing it out. But I'll tell you what. If you apologize to everyone that you've ever been uncivil to on Wikipedia, not only will I apologize for something that does not require an apology, but I will do it in any means you see fit using every resource at my disposal. Until that time, pot, kettle, black. Cheers, CP 03:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's 'very friendly' I'd hate to see what 'uncivil' would look like. Kettle, meet pot. OK, so I'm 'black' too. Whatever. The POINT was, you declared consensus...yet this was:

--NOT an official Wikipedia arbitration --NOT everyone had discussed this yet --MORE than one person favored adding Louis de Cavenave

Now, I could see that keeping a 'top 10' for both is not only the fairest, but also the easiest, method. However, the list had existed for MORE THAN A YEAR in the former format, which was:


 * 113+ or top 10 for females, whichever is more
 * 110+ or top 10 for males, whichever is more

Based on that formula, Bart made his edits. If consensus favors a simpler, top 10, then OK. But at least give people a chance to explain their position before 'finding' someone in non-compliance. I note that negativity has a way of going around: Neal 'jumped on the bandwagon' and declared Bart's edit to be 'vandalism'. No, it was a differing point-of-view.

As for apologizing, I've apologized before to those I felt needed an apology. I realize that, at times, I have been overly negative. However, that does not jusify or excuse your not respecting the process or worse, acting as if you were the process.

So, I leave it at this: I generally find the 'top 10' system to be fairest and simplest, so we can go with that. But at least hear out alterate points of view on the 'discussion' page.

Thanks. Ryoung122 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, thank you for being reasonable. A warm shower has cooled down my emotions anyhow. I think from now on, I should probably take a shower every time that little monster in my brain flies into a fury. As for seeing me be "uncivil" I reserve that for people who are dishonest, something that you have never been. The last girl that I was with, however.... haha. Cheers, CP 04:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, when IP 89.159.94.77 made the 'edit' of adding in the 11th oldest man in world who turned 110, I looked at his contributions to see half a page, starting from last month. Figured he was a new guy. So - I originally didn't quite consider it to be vandalism. But when CP reverted his edits, which I strongly agree upon, and then Captain celery decided to point it out, and me and CP agreed that 10 was the better number than 11, for Bart to post and revert to 11 after we already agreed, is when I worded it to be 'vandalism.' That was my reasoning behind it, others might differ.

I guess for the 1st time in Wikipedia history, the "11th oldest man" in the world, turned 110, and so now Captain Celery would like to bring up whether or not all 110 year-old men should be listed even if it exceeds 10. So me and CP opinionated that we felt top 10 was the better number, so what Bart could have done is explain why 11 or etc. was the better number rather than revert, see what I mean? But that's okay, the past is the past, I don't have to worry about it, this won't bother me. There are much more important stuff to bug me from my sleep at night. ;P Neal 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for saying so, but this is one of the sillier debates I have seen. I'm still trying to figure out why 110 years is of such great significance (if it was, then why not list all the women who have exceeded that age?). Seems to me that "10 oldest" is common sense and familiar, unless there is some great reason that all men (but not all women) who reach 110 years of age should be listed. Sure, lists of 10 are arbitrary, but less so than lists of 110-year-old men. Canada Jack 19:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Silly sure enough, I agree. As for the latter, why not list all women that are 110.0 or above? Well, as of October 16, we have 8 males and 68 females. And the oldest male is ranked #20. So you see now why we have a top 10 women and top 10 men? Neal 20:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Which underlines my point. If there isn't something intrinsically special about being 110, then focus on top 10 instead. Canada Jack 20:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's exactly my point, since there is something intrinsically special about being 110 and a male, hence. Extremely sexy 20:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? You have not listed something intrinsically interesting about a man turning 110, just that, at this moment, it is rarer than a 110-year-old woman. I still see no reason to list all men over 110 as there is nothing intrinsic about that age. Nor would I expect the list to be top six if only that many men were older than 110 at some future point. Canada Jack 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been rarer ever since humans were born, and if not at least 10 men are alive at 110, I would support a top 10. Extremely sexy 00:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point. Humans reaching the age of 109 years 200 days is also rare. So is 111 years 5 days. What is intrinsically special about 110? Since there is a separate page with a list of humans who have attained that age and are living, it seems redundant and silly to insist on this arbitrary milestone here. As I said above, a top 10 list is arbitrary, but less so than insisting on lengthening or shortening such a list to accommodate what some feel is an important milestone.
 * If I could make an analogy, Billboard, which has numerous charts listing popular recordings, doesn't extend a Top 10 or Top 100 list to include those records which pass an arbitrary milestone, say 1 million sales or what have you. That's because it is a Top 10 list, NOT a Million-sellers list. In a similar fashion, THIS is a Top 10 list, NOT a "who crossed this arbitrary boundary" list.
 * Exceeding 110 may be identified as a big milestone. However, including those people who do so in a Top 10 list conflates two different things: A list with a round figure of oldest people, with a list of people who have achieved an arbitrary milestone. Further, since there already exists a list of people who have reached that milestone, the perceived need to include those people on a top 10 list is diminished even if there was an argument for it. Canada Jack 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Canada Jack, very well said. In the past we had a 'top 10 or 110+' list, but there wasn't a 'main article' of all living persons 110+. Now that there is, the main point of this list is a quick summary for those simply looking for the top of the top. For more information, the user can simply click the 'main article' link.

My argument was mainly one of process; we needed to not be hasty in making sure everyone agreed. Taking one's time, your above argument succinctly explains that combining two criteria is not a good idea and that since there are now two ways of dealing with this, the need for a 'top 11' isn't really there. Ryoung122 01:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh, top 10 men and women? Well then, top 10 men and women would be only women. So you see now why we have a top 10 men? Neal 17:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

One more quibble: The current Top 10 list of oldest humans is all female. Might be a good idea to actually note that, at the moment, this list is all female as that isn't immediately obvious. Come to think of it, might be a good idea to simply label separate lists as male and female - because what happens if one male makes the Top 10? Do we add an 11th to include the 10th female? Make the Men's list a "2nd-to-10th" list? Or do we have THREE lists, separate men's and women's lists, with an over-all Top 10 list?

I'd say we should label the first list "Top 10 Women" with a note under the title saying "also Top 10 Humans" or what have you, then when a man reaches the over-all Top 10, create a new list with Top 10 Humans.Canada Jack 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You say the gender isn't immediately obvious but there is a key for that. When Emiliano Mercado and Moses Hardy were in the overall top 10, perhaps they had earned their place. I don't think you should add a list for that situation. Whether the status quo is ideal is another matter. Captain celery 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not obvious in the sense that it is headed "oldest people currently living." If you were looking at the list you may notice the next one which refers to men only and wonder why there isn't a similar list for women. Then you'd go back to the old list and, hopefully, realize that the people there are all women. Which is why I suggested calling it "oldest women (also oldest people)". What were the lists when several men were in the top ten? Canada Jack 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me say this: suppose there is a marathon race where there is a list of 'top finishers' (usually all male) and then also a separate list of 'top female finishers'. There is a second, separate list because it is considered that men have an intrinsic biological advantage. What, however, if a woman finished '9th'? Would they then list a separate, 'top male finishers' to make sure the 11th-place, male finisher gets the credit denied him by a woman? If he really deserved the honor, shouldn't he be able to beat someone whom he has a gendered advantage over?

Actually, you are speaking to the wrong guy, as I have run the Boston Marathon five times. They in fact DO have multiple lists: Top men's finishers, top women's finishers, overall finishers. When I last ran it, I could tell what a) my over-all rank was b) what my rank as a male was c) what my rank via my age group was. Canada Jack 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In aging, female supercentenarians outnumber male supercentenarians about 89% to 11%. For age 112+, the numbers are even more staggering: 92% female, 8% male. So, do we really need three separate lists? In truth, this is an issue that could be argued either way. But since it likely won't be a problem until at least mid-2008, when Tanabe will probably enter the top-10, can't we wait until then to worry about it? Ryoung122 01:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me to establish a style so this sort of "Top 11" debate doesn't break out when the inevitable happens. Because some day, be it next week or five years down the road, some male will be one of the world's 10 eldest. My suggestion is, at a minimum, to include under the "10 oldest people" a subhead of some sort along the lines of "also 10 oldest women". As I say below, to the casual reader it is not a given that the vast majority of these old people are female. That would, quite simply, underline that fact without getting into some long-winded discussion. Canada Jack 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unclear why there is need for separate male lists
It seems clear to me that there is a presumption it is generally known that the vast majority of people who reach 110 or beyond are women. Though the trends seem to be fairly clear - 90 % currently over 110 are female, only 3 of 23 over 115 historically male - it is nowhere stated on this page this trend exists and the rationale for making some male-only lists. Indeed, some of the remarks made on this page make it seem "like, duh! men getting to 110 is rare..."

I have looked at this page and only realized that separate male lists are done, it seems, for this reason after asking myself how many males made it to this age. While this may seem self-evident to those who regularly contribute, it is NOT to those who are not initiate. I believe it probably would benefit the page to make some note about this male/female disparity, as that would explain the need for some of the separate male lists. Canada Jack 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a separate all-male list? Because top 10 humans are top 10 females. And people can see that top 10 females are 114-112 whereas top 10 males are 112-110, etc.

Now as far as the male/female disparity, rather than... for males, 1-10, you would rather have, 20., 42./43., 51., 53., 55., 68., 72., just so you know that the 1st 2nd 3rd oldest man in world by their actual rank with women? Neal 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Neal, please reread what I wrote. Obviously I am aware as to why there are separate lists. The POINT is that unless you delve into the page in great detail, the reason for these separate lists are not apparent. That's all I am saying - it is not clear why there needs to be separate lists, and I therefore am suggesting that that be spelled out in some fashion as we can't assume that it is a given that everyone knows the vast majority of these extremely old people are women.Canada Jack 17:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should rephrase the question to: "It is not readily apparent to the casual reader why there is a need for separate lists." Canada Jack 17:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay so, when a user goes to the oldest people page, he/she can either go:


 * 1) Okay, there's a top 10 living women table and a top 10 living men table.


 * Or..


 * 2) Okay, I don't know 'why' there is a top 10 living women table and top 10 living men table.


 * For me, I'm with 1. Beyond that, I don't see why it matters. Neal 23:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

I can't agree that the femaleness of the overall list isn't obvious. It says 'sex' and underneath are 10 Fs. If the casual user can't work that out then there's nothing we can do for them. Captain celery 22:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Captain celery, with all due respect, something that is headed "oldest people" does not suggest to me that only females would be found there. Since the trends are clear - some 90 % of extremely old humans are female - I can't see a good reason why we simply name the list "oldest females" instead of "oldest humans." And, even if a male reaches that top 10 list of all humans - so what? He'd be on the top of the male list. Besides, what happens when we have a "10 people" list with 9 women, 1 man, and the "10 men" list - why the disparity? Why not list who the tenth woman is as well? That's whu it's a bit strange to label things this way, IMHO.


 * Here to me is a sensible way about this: Have two lists, one called "oldest females currently living," the other "oldest men currently living." When, as is currently the case, one of the "oldest living" lists matches the oldest people, period, include a sub-head saying "also oldest people currently living." When, as inevitably will happen, a man or several men make the top ten oldest people list, SIMPLY OMIT THE SUB-HEAD. If it is so blindingly obvious as some here think it is that the oldest living people happen to be all female, then it would also be blindingly obvious that one or two men would make the "top 10 persons" list if one existed (assuming this suggestion is adopted). Someone might say "oh Mr X is 113 years 20 days, which is older than woman #9, but not as old as woman #8." Not a particularly difficult calculation, if you ask me. But, if what people here seem to indicate and what the various lists suggest, we'll only expect ever to have at most 1 or 2 men on the "top 10" list at any given time.


 * This also would accommodate a possible future scenario where men and women would be roughly equal on a top 10 list. Otherwise, if we kept with this format we could easily have "10 persons" half of which are male, and a further "10 males" list without the attendant female list, and no good reason I can think of why to keep it that way.


 * And this, of course, neatly handles the question of whether a note that explains the disparity in men's and women's ages is needed - because the clearly labeled lists demonstrate intrinsically the disparity if it exists, and if the future shows no disparity, instead equal proportions, nothing need change. Canada Jack 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say, that this article is "oldest people" and not "oldest woman," so clearly, both genders should be listed. Now if you wanted the men's ranking to include their overall ranking with women too, I'd be for that. Note that that would require a heck of a lot of update for the bottom 6-10th oldest men. Neal 09:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC).


 * If the article is "oldest people," then we don't need and of the "oldest men" lists by this logic. AS I say above, if we simply relabel the list of 10 current oldest people to 10 current oldest women, we avoid the inevitable quandary when a man makes the top 10 living list of why have a 10-deep list of living men but not for women. I see no need to note the #9 man in terms of the over-all list. Both the living lists would be stand-alone, with a link to the over-110 list as it currently stands where one can see where the lower men on the list rank over-all, if one is curious (and as long as the men's list is all over 110). Canada Jack 14:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that men are people too. I only see this doing 2 ways: a top 10 people list, or, a top 10 women and top 10 men. No point in including just the superior gender. And if the top 10 people list are all women, I'm sure there are those that are curious to include a separate list. Now suppose the top 10 humans are 5 women and 5 men, or even 6 women and 4 men, and I could see why we don't need to split tables by gender. I guess it depends on how comprehensive we would like the article to be. Anyways, since they are tables, they are easier to read and follow, so I would vote for having 2 tables instead of 1. Neal 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Well, since there seems to be a perceived need to have separate men's lists presumably owing to the disparity here, I vote for having two "oldest living" lists, one for men, one for women. There already is a list for the 10 oldest men ever, as most of them would not make it to the all-time list, but since women are 10 of the top 10, there's no real need to make a separate list there.

But I think the error here is in applying that logic to the "oldest living" lists, which is why I feel a change should be made. While I can see how it initially would make sense to have an "oldest living persons" list followed by an "oldest living men" list, as that follows what is above it, upon reflection it seems to me that the "oldest living persons" list should be replaced by an "oldest living women" list. At the moment, that simply requires a change in title. AS I said before, problems crop up when men, as they will inevitably, make the over-all top 10 list as you then have a situation where you have a 10-deep list for men, but not one for women. This will fix that, eliminating in one fell swoop the need for an "oldest persons list."

I might add that there is already an "extra" list here for men - a list of those who held the oldest man record from the 1950s on. Since several of those men were also the oldest person at the time, there is a gap here in who was the oldest women, particularly for the near-decade Izumi was oldest. There is a total of about 15 years over the past 50 where one can't know who was the oldest woman, yet we have all the men for that same period. But to create such a page would, I agree, add too much to this page as it is. Canada Jack 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But if we changed the title into "women", no casual reader would understand this as "people", and ask for the men, so no agreement there. Extremely sexy 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And why should the casual reader understand this as "people," prey tell? A casual reader might look at the ages of the women list and then the men list and note that each is older than the current oldest man, it's clear enough. What is NOT clear is why there should be a separate list for men especially when they start to make the 10 oldest person list! Seems to me the main objection from quarters here is that it is "obvious" that the 10 oldest human list is comprised solely of women. I'd say that it would be equally "obvious" that all the women on the list, if labeled "oldest women" are older than all the men on their list! And, thus far, I've not seen a SINGLE rational as to why we should have a 10-deep man list here and not one for women when, inevitably, a man makes the top 10 person list! Canada Jack 00:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bart, you'd rather have a top 10 people and top 10 men list? As opposed to top 10 women and top 10 men? So by your logic, if top 10 people are half female and half male, should there also be a top 10 male too? As well as top 10 female to break the tie? I'm with the 'top 10 women' and 'top 10 men' rather than 'top 10 women/men' and 'top 10 men.' Neal 01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

Exactly. This change is very simple and as I suggested earlier, we could easily include a subhead when as is currently the top 10 women also are the top 10 people. Canada Jack 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * User Canadian Jack, you have said more than your fair share, and you're wrong. Consider Emiliano Mercado Del Toro. He was the Guinness 'oldest living man' since Nov 19 2004. But in Dec. 2006 he also became 'world's oldest person.' Since he is eligible for both lists, we need at LEAST an 'overall list' and an 'oldest man' list. Now, if you wish, we could ALSO make a third list, 'oldest women.' But since that currently would be exactly the same as the 'oldest living' list, would that make sense?

The bottom line: either there's going to be two lists...oldest people, oldest men...or three: oldest people, oldest women, oldest men. But 'oldest people' and 'oldest men' aren't going anywhere.

Further, if you consider that the top-10 oldest living people list LINKS to a longer version that has both men and women on it, then we see that it would NOT be appropriate to re-name the 'oldest people' list to 'oldest women' when the long version includes men. Ryoung122 17:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just read the article, and I saw it listed the top 10 women as 'oldest people' rather than 'oldest women.' It all of a sudden makes sense to me now. Now I know why all the conflict. Simple solution: why didn't anyone change the word people to women? And then we can discuss that. Neal 23:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Ryoung has sent me a rather insulting note suggesting there is "consensus" to keep the page status quo, and that I should "cool off" - and that a "disclaimer" has been added. It is clear to me that Ryoung doesn't understand the potential conflict and mischaracterisizes the "consensus." It seems clear to me that at least one other member here agrees with me. Ryoung, answer the question: what happens when a man makes the Top 10 list? Why keep a 10-deep male list and not a 10-deep female list?Canada Jack 14:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was the disclaimer added? It makes little sense in context of the discussion. Canada Jack 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have sent Ryoung a suggestion that I feel addresses both our concerns: His identified need to have a list entitled "oldest persons" and my concern that a 10-deep list for men could list fewer that 10 women in the near future, an inconsistency.


 * How about we simply mimic what was above for the all-time lists? There, we don't have an all-time 10 oldest followed by all-time 10 men, we have a MILESTONE list (115 years) followed by a top-10 list for men.


 * So, make the "oldest people currently living (top 10)" list "oldest people currently living (112+)", and keep the men's list status quo. As it currently stands, there are 19 women and 1 man on that list, which doesn't overly lengthen the list as it stands and has the added current benefit if including the oldest man, thus indicating his over-all place, just as we have for the oldest ever list. Of course, if a lot of 112+ year-olds die off, or a huge number of people over the next few years attain that age or 113, the list could be adjusted accordingly, ensuring a minimum of 10 females on the list. I don't see the issue of indicating the oldest man's over-all rank as a significant concern as we don't currently note it on this page.


 * Any comments? Canada Jack 21:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the mens list, it is valuable. There is already a List of the oldest people, so I don't think any need for "oldest above a certain age" would be needed. The reason a men's list is valuable is that they don't live as long as women, so having it displayed as a completely separate list is needed. You could have one of women too, I suppose, but it would be virtually the same as the overall list. The reason the men list is more interesting (and needed) is that they often don't make the overall list. (Cardsplayer4life 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

Please re-read the thread. My proposal WOULD keep the men's list, Cards. My question is: Why must we know the #10 man and not the #10 woman when a man makes the oldest person list? Canada Jack 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems that despite the rather glaring discrepancies found on this page, there is no consensus to change anything. While I can see the need to have an "oldest living persons" list, I find it hard to understand the need to have a stand-alone men's list without a similar provision for women. I find it quite surprising that Ryoung, who seems to be an academic and a gerontologist, has made no attempt a) to seriously address my point (simply declaring I am "wrong" when, clearly, there WILL be a discrepancy when a man makes the list), b) or even respond to what I feel is a sensible solution to this inevitable discrepancy which takes into account his stated need for an "oldest living persons" list, which has the added benefit of making these list consistent with the oldest persons ever lists. Sometimes it takes an outsider to note that the Emperor has no clothes - alas, in this case, the Emperor it would seem chooses to remain naked, and his subjects concur.


 * Despite my irritation that this issue is not been taken seriously, I respect the fact that a consensus is lacking to change this. As such, I won't press the issue anymore unless someone else feels a need to. Might be an issue when a man gets in the top 10 again, but we'll have to wait for - what? - 9 of the women ahead of Tanabe to die before he does. Then, this discrepancy may become clear to more. Ryoung said that we'd not expect that till August 2008 at the earliest. I suppose that date comes from life expectancy trends and assumes Tanabe doesn't die. Maybe at that point we can change the "10 oldest living persons" list into a milestone list like I have suggested. Or not... Canada Jack 14:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you're not famous for starting debates. So I'll give it a shot.

I do agree with you on 1 thing: why should we know the #10 man if we won't know the #10 women if we know the #10 person. Back when Emiliano Mercado del Toro and Moses Hardy made the top 10, we only knew the #8 woman. So the "top 10 men list" might as well be "top 8 men."

And after del Toro's death, the top 10 people should be changed to top 10 women. Only when Tanabe makes #10 should we change the name of the table to oldest people overall, but then, list only the top 9 men. Neal 16:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Like I said, I'm not going to press the issue until a male makes the top 10. But, as an aside, what I find fascinating is that a look at the all-time men's top 10 list reveals that all but two of the men listed died in the past decade. And the other two are both men whose claims are disputed. Six of the 10 eldest women all-time died within the last 10 years. So as time and more comprehensive records confirm claims, presumably a greater pool of very aged people will emerge here. And, as the stock of those men who presumably were lost to the ravages of the Great War passes, it will be interesting to see if we see a proportional rise in very old men, perhaps something greater than the roughly 10 per cent of those over 110. That likely won't affect the issue I have raised here for a number of years, though. Canada Jack 17:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)