Talk:List of the verified oldest men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject World's Oldest People (Rated List-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject World's Oldest People, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Date sorting on death date[edit]

The sorting on the death date sorts on day, month and then year. I have no idea why it would do that as the format looks correct and same as the dates entered for birth date. Birth date sorts correctly with year, month then day. Thanks, HJKeats (talk)

It may be something to do with living cases being displayed as text("Living") and therefore the column is sorted as text rather than as dates. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Title is the wrong way round.[edit]

This should be called "List of the oldest verified men", not "List of the verified oldest men". They are not verified as being the oldest, they are the oldest whose ages have been verified. (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. "Oldest verified men" would imply a list of verified men by age i.e. "oldest 'verified men'". It looks odd, but the alternative would be something like "Oldest men whose age has been verified" which is too cumbersome. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't "look odd" it IS WRONG. A cumbersome but factual title is preferable to a short but false one. --Khajidha (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It is neither wrong nor false if you have a competent understanding of English. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
"Verified oldest men" means that these men have been proven to be the oldest to have ever lived. They have not been so proven and cannot be so proven. They are the oldest men whose age has been verified. --Khajidha (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
An accurate title is certainly preferable to a misleading one. A seven-word title, as suggested above, is not unreasonably cumbersome. (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Verified means that these men have been proven to be the oldest to have ever lived. This cannot be proven nor can it ever be proven. They are then the recent oldest men whose age has been verified. The title is misleading.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above editors that the current title is misleading. A similar discussion has taken place at Talk:Main Page, regarding the ITN blurb about the death of Jiroemon Kimura; the solution hit upon was the phrase "longest verified lifespan". Could the same solution work here? List of people with the longest verified lifespan seems like a reasonable title. DoctorKubla (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not take advantage of how the Gerontology Research Group addressed the situation and call it List of the oldest validated living men. HJKeats (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Why not "list of the oldest men of verified age"?--Khajidha (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be called list of oldest verified men verified by the GRG. The GRG is a modern group that verifies age with great results back to people born 1850 or after. The problem is before that records are fragmented or don't exist. If you believe in GOD and the Bible then you would have to believe the oldest living man was 969 years old and people who were 110 years old were considered young adults. For example in the southern United States in the 1830 census black people were not given a name but listed as slave property. Many wore slave tags with numbers around their necks. This was to identify who they were property of. Not even considered fully human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Years may be of different lengths due to the presence or absence of a leap day within the year, or to the conversion of dates from one calendar to another[edit]

Whose ages are of different lengths due to the conversion of dates from one calendar to another? Omitti86 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Previous consensus has been that differentiating between the length of years, or taking into account the different number of leap years, is not necessary. This was part of the discussion as to whether age should be calculated using days only or years and days. Given that some people are born and die in different time zones at (mostly) unknown times of day it was felt that any further distinctions about "exact" age were not warranted. I don't recall any discussion on the conversion from one calendar to another for any current case on this list. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I missed this - the note was place in good faith by an editor who noted that many countries didn't adopt the Gregorian calendar until as late as the 20th century. Therefore, there - potentially - could be an error if the date conversion wasn't accounted for (as much as 14 days). While a note was attached to some such as a claimant in Romania, I pointed out that a similar note attached to the now-debunked Shig Izumi claim was not warranted as there was no indication that when they adopted the Gregorian calendar there were any issues about miscalculating the days as Japan wasn't on the Julian calendar before. These notes were eventually dropped, but it is there in the lede. Not sure it makes any sense now (made little sense to me then, as anyone who needs to deal with dates going back that far would be more aware than most about these sort of issues of calendrics). Canada Jack (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

New person entered to the list[edit]

There is a Ethan Shelton (July 10, 1903) in Gerontology Research Group list. Today he is 110 years 271 days old. (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

New addition, Nazar Singh,[edit]

Little known news

a man just turned 110 years old in Britain a few days ago [1], he could be "Britain's oldest man" but that is not verified yet. Does he warrant a place on this page? (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No. This page is for verified cases only. Singh will almost certainly never be verified. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)