Talk:Oldest people

mr struger is the oldest person on earth

Proposed removal of unnecessary and inaccurate information

At present we have the supposed length of time someone has been the oldest person/man. This information was added after an attempt to include details of "longest" and "shortest" spans was outvoted and was not questioned at the time. This information is inaccurate (because not only does the variation in timezone often make them a day out but the number of disputed cases {especially Izumi} makes them often meaningless. In addition they do not enhance the look of the page and, if I read Talk:Oldest people#Age range above correctly the excessive detail does not aid the average user's understanding of the article. I propose this detail be removed in a week unless there is consensus to the contrary. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. We already removed details such as "acceded to the title at 114 years 124 days." Length of reign is useful for people to understand the relative importance of a particular case. Izumi, even if false, is important (culturally) because he dominated the record books for years and years. Also, some argue that having the title is an ephemeral "event" but length of reign shows that is often not the case.Ryoung122 22:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What "relative importance"? There may be some importance to members of the GRG but that doesn't apply to the general user of this page. This page is not about the relative merits of any "recordholder" it is merely a list (or several lists) of them. Cluttering up the tables with excessive trivia is not going to aid the casual readers understanding of who is currently deemed to have been the recordholder and when they held that title. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely we'd all agree that Queen Elizabeth II's reign, even nominally, is of more importance than that of a monarch who lasted only 325 days. Likewise, it is clear that someone holding the "world's oldest" title for a long time (say, 9 years) has had more impact than someone who held the title for 13 days.Ryoung122 11:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a valid comparison. First, unlike rulers or active figures, no official role or duties are conferred upon the holder of the 'world's oldest' title, so the duration of their reign doesn't have the same impact on their importance. Pope John Paul II, for instance, was able to accomplish far more than many of his predecessors not just because of the man that he was, but because of the comparatively longer amount of time he spent in St. Peter's throne. With the 'world's oldest' title we often don't even hear much more from them than we do from other supercentenarians (and indeed false claimants to the title). Often all we get is a birthday announcement and perhaps a comment or two from the title holder themselves. As a result, Calment's long reign had no greater impact even in the world of supercentenarians than those who held it for much shorter spans.

THAT'S COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS. Jeanne Calment's long reign "changed the way scientists think about aging." She was covered in magazines such as Time Magazine, which in 1993 did a story about "turning back the clock on aging", and not just for a "birthday story." It also changed the way demographers looked at their mortality models, and caused them to come up with new hypotheses (such as "mortality deceleration" by James Vaupel). You can't say the same thing for Mitoyo Kawate or Emma Tillman, whose short reigns at most filled in small gaps (their successors were also 114). If you don't know about this subject enough to contribute, there are plenty of other ones on Wikipedia to edit.Ryoung122 04:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But it wasn't Jeanne Calment's "reign" per se which changed the way scientists think, it was the fact of her extreme age. And that is all that we are saying here. I'd say it is far more relevant that there hasn't been an "oldest" claimant who wasn't at least 114 since 1991, while in the 60s and the 70s, the oldest person was often under 110. So, if someone today who reaches 115 then dies, her "reign" may only last a year. If she had been that age 40 years ago, she could had been world's oldest for six or seven years. The best we can say is that length of reign in general reflects the mean norm of world's oldest for a particular era. So, the "norm" now is 114, 115 or so. Those who reign for longer are among the oldest people ever, top 10 or 15. But I am sure this is, statistically, what we'd expect. I don't feel particularly strongly about removing the length of the reign, it's just I don't see it as being very relevant. Canada Jack (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, this also suffers from the same issues that many pages of this kind do. As time progresses we have more people with verifiable birth and life event records, resulting in generally shorter reigns in recent decades than in prior ones. Obviously there are exceptions such as Calment, but she is a notable exception, and not particularly indicative of a trend worth tracking overall. In addition to better record keeping, world events and even steady improvements in medical science have led to shifts in lifespan that have inflated the population at the top reaches significantly. This also exerts a donward pressure on the length of reign as world's oldest as they approach the presumed biological limits of human lifespan. As a result of these factors, the reliability of the data as a representation of a useful fact is questionable. aremisasling (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a good reason to KEEP the information. As you mention, in theory the reigns should become shorter as the "rectangularization of the mortality curve" means that more and more people reach age 114. But will they? Have they? Even in 2009, Gertrude Baines held a 13-month age gap over her successor, and two of the last three titleholders have held the title for at least six months. Also, there is a disagreement among scientists as to whether there really is a "biological upper limit" and how flexible this limit is. Such statistics come in handy for people trying to get some idea of how long the titleholders are lasting today, as compared to the past. Finally, if the "maximum life span" pushes upward again like it did in the 1990s, one would expect the length of reigns to increase again. Persons such as Walter Breuning, who has tried new methods to achieve longevity (such as caloric restriction) might cause a new era of higher records, and thus longer reigns.

Finally, the length of reign is only one number per entry, so there's no chance of additional clutter from having it.Ryoung122 04:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that in this category, length of "reign" is somewhat trivial. It's not an achievement per se, as the length of reign is dependent on other people dying before the claimant in question. It's more a reflection on the general lack of or abundance of very elderly people. And, it's not always true that a lengthy "reign" is more notable. The most famous holder of the world record for the mile run - Roger Bannister - is also the man who held the record for the shortest amount of time, a mere six weeks or so. In the end, I doubt many people pay much attention to how long someone holds a record in this category. Canada Jack (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, though, Roger Bannister was a quirk of the fascination with the "4-minute" barrier. People like "round numbers." I think a more valid comparison would be the long jump, where Bob Beamon's record lasted 23 years. That alone makes it a more important record than, for example, Usain Bolt's 9.72 which he broke himself a few months later.Ryoung122 04:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, who can name the longest record-holder in the mile for the past 100 years? It happens to be Hicham El-Guerroj, the current record-holder but he is not generally known outside of sports circles. Beamon's record was indeed very important, as was Owen's and, now, Powell's. But it didn't become an "important" record because it lasted 23 years, it was important because it so hugely broke the previous record. It's importance, in other words, was recognized the day it was set. As was Powell's. As for Bolt, his 9.72 was set at a relatively small meet, but when he shattered that record in Beijing, it was instantly seen as one of the great achievements ever in track. The fact that record has now been broken - it lasted exactly a year - doesn't diminish the importance of what he did. Indeed, perhaps the most famous 100 meter runner of all time - Carl Lewis - only held the record for about three years. Who remembers Calvin Smith who held the record for about the same amount of time? Canada Jack (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of dragging the track and field analogy too far (easily done for a fan like myself) a few points. Track and field records are verified under certain restrictions (eg wind allowance and equipment) and have been enhanced considerably by technology. Owens' record lasted longer than Beamon's but Beamon's was the greater improvement (aided by all-weather run-up and altitude). If there was a suspicion that the record should have been invalidated (there are rumours the wind gauge was not operated properly) then the length of time he held the record would be meaningless (as with Izumi). An even more appropriate comparison would be Flo-Jo's 100m record (which was almost cetainly (in my opinion is 99.999% certain) wind aided and if the relevant officials ever admit they stuffed up or the IAAF were prepared to bite the bullet and rescind it for that (and other reasons) it would not stand for another 50 years (which it probably will). Also, I for one think that Calvin SMith would have beated Carl Lewis in 1984 had he not been injured prior to the trials. Back to gerontology. This page is not an exposition of gerontological thought, implying that the casual user will gain an insight into longevity by being given such details as the length of the "reigns" of the oldest people assumes too much. It is also not the purpose of this article. It is ALSO misleading as the Izumi case is questionable. It ALSO does not improve the look of t he article (this may not seem important but if we are trying to create good quality articles overloading it with unnecessary information and thereby cluttering up the page should be taken into consideration). As the scope of this article is largely to summarise information from other articles it really does not need the inclusion of what is essentially trivia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, for me the salient point is that the "importance" of a record is not necessarily measured by the length of time it stands, but usually many other factors. In the same way, if someone lives to be 124, but there was someone else born a month before who lived to die on her 122nd birthday, living to 124 is not diminished by the historical coincidence of another 120+-year-old that she was "only" the oldest person for two years, a "paltry" reign in comparison to Izumi's 9+ years and Calment's 6+ years. Indeed, since Izumi's claim was disputed and Calment's predecessor to the title, who held it for 3+ years was also disputed, one has to wonder just how meaningful this is in the end anyway.

IOW, while many people pay attention to someone who turns, say 118, I'm not sure anyone pays any attention to the "reign" of these people outside of gerontology circles. Canada Jack (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a 3-1 consensus that this information should be removed. Unless that changes within the next week I will go ahead and remove it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What's inaccurate is you saying that the information is "inaccurate" when, in fact, it is accurate. As for necessary, I think the article is better with it. I also don't see "consensus" to remove. What I see are a few loud opinions and the consensus is to KEEP, as readers of the article haven't complaiined about it, but seem to like it the way it is.Ryoung122 07:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Readers occasionally do complain about things on wikipedia, but in general from what I've seen you don't hear much from the users one way or another. I wouldn't take their silence to be approval, tacit or otherwise, of the status quo. From the comments we do have it does appear to lean towards removing it though Wikipedia is not a democracy. The opinions, loud or otherwise, in support of the removla are more numerous than the opinions to keep as a basic fact. Though after a month's removal from the topic, I think I'll move my vote to neutral. While I still don't see a lot of utility in it, there really isn't much in the way of damage that can come from it, and it does provide a piece of information people may be interested in. It's still a very minor detail that's more about coincidence than it is about any telling facts, even with the previous discussion on the rectangularization of the sc ages. aremisasling (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It os inaccurate because time zone differential means that such "records" could be a day out. It is also potentially highly inccurate because of the disputed cases like Izumi. The argument that readers of the article haven't complaiined about it" doesn't hold either: I am complaining about it. It would be a more valid to process to remove it and see if there are any complaints (other than your's Robert). This is a summary page with abbreviated lists from other articles EXCEPT the lists of the oldest person/man which don't have their own article(s). They should have (which I have suggested before), and all the trivia as well as explanations of disputed cases and lists of undisputed cases only could be included there. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Robert on his point about "inaccurate." You are conflating "precision" with "accuracy," Derby. While it is true that if one knows the hour of birth and the hour of death one can with more precision state a person's age, this does not mean that only knowing the day of birth and the day of death is any less accurate - it would be just as accurate, though not as precise. And, as long as we are aware of the level of precision found here - to the day - and the margin of error - roughly 48 hours - then we are on firm ground. Canada Jack (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I also have to agree on that point. It's accurate to within a day or two, depending on hour of death (data we don't have) and time zone (ditto). Izumi's disputed record is a problem regardless of whether the "length of record" is included. The downside of including "length of record" information seems extremely minimal, and the upside -- well, it's extra information, of interest to some. However, what the "days in parentheses" mean could stand to be explicitly explained: the column heading could be changed to "To (total)", or a sentence could be added above the table that summarizes what the table and its columns contain.

--Father Goose (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not really necessary. Most people mark their birthday when the date arrives - they don't wait to the time of day they were born, nor do they consult astronomical tables to ensure the sidereal year is accounted for. IOW The margin of error is implicit as most people count a day as starting at midnight, not at the hour and minute of their birth. Canada Jack (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Halime Olcay

I found this article today: http://www.aptn.com/80256FE9003EF444/%28httpStories%29/48366ABC36A9C53880257678005E1757?OpenDocument&day=25&month=11&year=2009&feed=horizons&viewtype=day&section=horizons

Any other sightings? She would be the leader by far. Chelman (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

135 is so far beyond the bounds of credibility she would not even qualify for Longevity claims, let alone this page (which is for verified persons). Perhaps Longevity myths. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Halime Olcay sighting with video http://en.rian.ru/video/20091126/156990606.html , though I don't really believe it yet. Simanos (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hillard Hudson

He died November 6th, so his name should be removed. 74.249.144.59 (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/tuscaloosa/obituary.aspx?n=hillard-hudson&pid=136032400 here is a source. 74.249.144.59 (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

116-year-old german

In the german Wikipedia this case is under Discussion: [1] Has GRG ever heard of it? How should it be handled? I don't think that it is likely he reached this age but his birth- and deathdate are well proofed. --Dangermouse600 (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Green rows?

I suggested here that the green rows found scattered throughout the article are not a good way to highlight... what, exactly?

The significance of the green is not mentioned anywhere in the article, and it's not obvious why some entries are highlighted and others aren't (including Bruening twice but Chinen only once). Plus it's a rather neon shade -- "Pay attention to me!" You don't want to be drawing the reader's attention to something when the significance of the attention is not immediately obvious and not otherwise explained.

After several minutes of looking over the tables, I was finally able to deduce that the rule is "living people who aren't in tables about living people". If it takes that long to figure out what the significance of the highlighting is, it's not an effective enhancement of the article.--Father Goose (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. Seems obvious to me what the green indicates. Canada Jack (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It loses its obviousness when the same individuals are highlighted in some lists but not in others. You are probably very familiar with these lists, so you know all the context that is, in fact, completely absent to someone seeing them for the first time. In the interest of WP:OBVIOUS, would you object to my adding a sentence explaining the significance of the highlighting?--Father Goose (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Another problem: "oldest living since 19xx" can be taken to mean "oldest ever" since that time (as opposed to "oldest currently living", which is unambiguous). Might I recommend an explanatory sentence at the top of the two "since 19xx" tables? Or maybe even changing the title of those two to something like "active recordholders since 19xx" and "active recordholding men since 19xx"?--Father Goose (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't get into original research. "Active" recordholders sounds silly...many of these people are doing little more than breathing. "Living" is what the outside sources say:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7013599773

Ryoung122 06:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a question of OR, it's a question of trying to maximize the clarity of the wording. I admit "active" is not the best possible wording, though I still think it's clearer than what's currently used. Without context, "oldest living people since 1955" sounds like "the oldest that have lived since that time", which makes it sound redundant with the main "oldest people ever" table. Its actual focus is "oldest alive at any given moment since 1955", but that is not self-evident from its current title.

How about "Longevity recordholders since 1955"? This parallels the naming approach used for the article national longevity recordholders. Or even just "Living recordholders since 1955"? I think I like that best.--Father Goose (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If others agree, under the current headline (oldest living people since 1955, etc) we could add a line something like "Successive holders of the world's oldest living people title since 1955. Some of the title-holders were recognized retrospectively." Replace "people" with "men" and "1955" with "1961" for the other list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canada Jack (talk • contribs)

That would work for me.--Father Goose (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Article length

In order to manage the overall length of article, removed a breakout of 'Men currently living aged over 110 years'. There will be men either among the top 10 living... or not, so be it. Either way, they could be listed at:List of living supercentenarians if over 110, or perhaps some 'currently living' variant of List of the verified oldest men.Cander0000 (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this change. Get consensus BEFORE making a change like this. There are actually several problems with this article but length isn't really one of them, and the chances of getting a consensus on making any sort of significant cleanup appears remote (judging from previous experience). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, but an incremental step might get it closer to resolving the "...several problems..." to which you allude. I think this article could eventually evolve into a developed article as well as having a list o' people. Any specific objections to removing the list of 'Men currently living aged over 110 years'?Cander0000 (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that most of the regular users who contribute to this article will object so I would object to its removal without allowing at least a week to achieve consensus. I also think that although there are only 2 men in the list at the moment that is not a good enough reason to remove it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring this section. I have been following the "oldest men" section for a couple of years, and was irritated that it had just been removed. Apparently, unless there is someone who was born after December 14, 1899, we now have only two verified men from the 1800's. As we see the eventual elimination of all men, then all people who were born in this century, it remains essential that we have this updated list. I have posted this without signing in because I do not seek to take an active role in the editing here. Only two other times have I had a problem with eliminations from this page. One was when "gold standard" was eliminated from the description of Mrs. Calment's life span. The other was the record of the oldest living tissue from a corneal transplant.

216.134.11.32 (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)B. Parsons

I feel that if the "men currently living" section is retained, it should include the 10 oldest currently living, not "whoever happens to be > 110". Is such data available?--Father Goose (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, this page is exclusively for "supercentenarians," and a human being must have attained the age of 110 to be recognized as such. However, there are several female supercentanarians who are currently not on the page, but can be found in a separate section. This was one reason I think that the "oldest men" section should be permanently retained; there are only two verified male supercentanarians at this point. There will be others, such as John Babcock, in the next year.

216.134.11.32 (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)B Parsons

There is a more practical reason for listing only 110+ males. Generally, claims are not verified until the candidate reaches that age. So, instead of mixing verified and unverified claims in a single list, only those verified super-c's are included. Canada Jack (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, is there anyone on this site who has anyone currently undergoing verification? I would be interested to know if we will have any more men from the 1800's to add to our list. The dwindling of the list to just two men was very sudden, and I would like to think that perhaps there are a few more who can be verified.

216.134.11.32 (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)B Parsons

Go to the List of living supercentenarians page where both verified and unverified superc's are listed (though there is currently a debate on what claimants from which countries can make the latter list). There are two men on the latter list, but it does not seem likely these men will be verified as they've been on the list past their claimed 111th birthdays. Go to the talk page to see a list of people who are within three months or so of turning 110. The next known man (there may be unreported claimants) is Stanley Lucas who would reach the claimed age of 110 on January 15 if, of course, he survives the month. So there are no more men verified alive likely to emerge who were born in the 1800's. But, there are still men who were born in the 19th century likely to reach 110 (that century's last day was December 31, 1900). Canada Jack (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, CJ, this is exactly the information I was looking for. It was very interesting reading in the discussion room you cited. I appreciate your help.

216.134.11.32 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)B Parsons

Apparently there are no other men in the process of validation. However I believe there are a couple of Japanese males born in 1899, but they are currently anonymous. The bottom line really is that we can't have an official list without official verification. While I agree, it would be better if we did have a top 10 list of males, there's no international organisation that regularly verifies ages below 110 so we can't legitimately do that. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We should also point out that about a year ago there were 10 living male super-c's, so we are currently at an unusual time where there are so few males over 110. Generally, the ratio is around 10:1 in terms of female vs male, but we current have 40:1. Canada Jack (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, the "oldest living male" list is at the lowest point it's been in the past decade (having reached a previous low of 4 several years back). It's very likely to go back up in 2010. The "class of 1900" is a strong male field, with the oldest men in the UK, Norway, Belgium, France, etc. all born in 1900. The huge gap may have been a statistical fluke. In the past ten years, the number of validated 110-year-old males living at the same time has been as high as 16.Ryoung122 21:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We could at least put a note in the article explaining things to this effect. You know me, I'm all about explaining stuff. Considering the shortness of the table has prompted the questions being discussed here, I feel it can't hurt.--Father Goose (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: if there are official records of sub-centenarians, why don't we add them to the list? I think a list of "the 10 oldest men" is more useful than a list of "the only two above 110". If such records aren't actually official, then my note was not erroneous.--Father Goose (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Obviously, there are official records for men under 110...the question, though, is about ranking. Currently, the GRG and the www.recordholders.org sites only accept claims to 110+. What if a man were 109 1/2 and hasn't applied yet because the family knows he's not 110 yet? More to the point: the family of Garland Adair, for example, didn't report him until several months after his 110th birthday. There is a certain 'reporting fatigue' until the persons' age reaches a point where someone feels on reporting it. If we just make up our own list, it will be biased in favor of Europeans...because Europe is divided into many small countries, and the oldest man in Belgium is likely to be reported, but a 108-year-old man in Japan or the U.S. might not get attention, unless a war veteran.Ryoung122 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, none of these lists will ever contain "oldest in the world"; they'll contain "oldest reported and confirmed". (And even then they may contain errors.) If a list of "10 oldest men known" has to be padded with "oldest in Belgium" and the like, that's fairly interesting in its own right, and still factually accurate: "these are the oldest that are known of at this time". Then you reshuffle if others come forward and displace them.--Father Goose (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Case in point: list of living supercentenarians only contains 131 verified+unverified out of an estimated 400 worldwide. It's not a true list of the oldest, but a list of what is known. There will probably be more "overlooked" 109-year-olds than 110-year-olds due to the nature of reporting, but that needn't stop us from sharing what data is available. We can note that the data is unconfirmed, or that the individuals "were alive last year" as long as we cite appropriately.--Father Goose (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference, however. For the "oldest living person" list, it's general knowledge that applicants are accepted starting at age 110. So, someone has FOUR years, at least, to apply. So, not being listed is no excuse.

However, suppose there is a hypothetical man born December 29, 1899 and lives in the U.S. There wouldn't even be a 110th birthday story yet because he's not 110 yet. Neither would the case be accepted because he's not 110 yet. Adding a subset of cases, like the oldest man in Belgium, is just filling vacancies with anyone you can find, rather than a fair vetting process that is, at least in theory, open to anyone in the world who can prove the age claimed.

Further, I think we should remember that we are already doing males a favor by having a male-only list. What about women who are 110, 111, 112?

The point of this article is OLDEST people...if someone is 108, 109 that's not really quite up there. Ryoung122 04:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you join the "110 Club" for speculation as to the top-ten oldest-known men. Speculation has its place, but I don't know if Wikipedia is that place. Also, the World's Oldest People webgroup discusses upcoming cases:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/

Ryoung122 04:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting speculation: I'm suggesting Wikipedia could have a completely factual list of "10 oldest known men", backed up by citations. I'm sure many of them could be culled from living national longevity recordholders, which appears to be fully cited. There is clearly a way to populate a "top 10" list in a completely rule-compliant and non-speculative manner. As for any possible "109-year-olds we don't know about", we can omit them with a clear conscience in the same way we omit the 200+ supercentenarians we don't know about.

As for "doing men a favor" by maintaining a separate list, given the nature of biology, we also "do women a favor" by maintaining separate athletic record lists. And that's the way it should be. "Oldest men" is oldest men. It's not like there's something illegitimate about maintaining a separate mens' list because the women happen to dominate the "oldest overall" list. We'd do the same for the women if the situation were reversed. We don't do it as a "favor"; we do it because it's of scholarly interest.--Father Goose (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What Robert's getting at here is the vetting process for old people doesn't start until they turn 110. Compiling a list of 109-year-olds would constitute original research as there is no vetted compilation of such people. Further, the field concentrates on supercentenarians - those who are over 110 - not "top 10" lists per se. If fewer than 10 people exceed 110 in a category, that category reports only those over 110. Let's not get too excited about "top 10" lists here - the current-day focus on claims is for those who reach that special milestone - 110 - 109-year-olds are, for the purposes of the page, trivia. Canada Jack (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's still not original research. What it would be is a compilation of an "unofficial" list based on best available data, fully cited. I'm willing to bet that living national longevity recordholders is not based on any official list either; that in itself doesn't make it OR or any other form of scholarly misdeed. That list is a well-researched, fully cited compilation of entries.

The field's focus on 110-year-olds does not make it unacceptable for us to maintain a "top 10 known men" list. If need be, we can note the limitations of such a list compared to the "official" ones -- there might be more individuals overlooked, or perhaps "death" updates would come in less often. But I'm pretty sure we could still maintain such a list in a responsible, scholarly, Wikipedia-rules-compliant manner. So what am I overlooking here?--Father Goose (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Theodore Sypnier

I wonder if the world's oldest sex offender (age 100) is notable, see [2]. What do you all think? Bearian (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article? it says that this man is the oldest in NY state, NOT the world...it even lists a 103-year-old sex offender in Utah.Ryoung122 05:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the quote:

"Although his age makes him New York's oldest registered sex offender, there is at least one older offender elsewhere. Bert Jackson of Utah is 103 and living under home confinement."

In any case, this article is about oldest people in general, not specific things such as "oldest office worker" or "oldest sex offender."

Ryoung122 05:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not for this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if there were an article where it did fit, there's no doubt that it would sooner or later be declared a BLP violation and sentenced to death.--Father Goose (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Henny van Andel"

Isn't this a bit too casual in reference to Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper? It appears in the table for the list of national longevity recordholders. Brendanology (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Betsy Baker

[3] It says that Baker held her title beginning on November 20, 1948 and lasting until her death, making her age when she held the title 106 – 113 instead of ? – 113. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanology (talk • contribs) 12:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)