Talk:List of the verified oldest people

Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT. Guides recommend having greater than 3% words in links, but be sure not to overlink words just to add more links.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 23:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ties

Should favor those who are there first...you don't break a record by matching it, but by exceeding it.Ryoung122 03:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they should favour whoever has lived longer in days (well actually I don't think they should be tied), since some have lived through more leap years.

Here's a quote from a while back (see Archive 10):

"Regarding the discussion of rankings based on supercentenarians (years and days):

1. The GRG chose the year/day format, in part due to tradition. This tradition includes Guinness World Records but was actually started by T.E. Young, president of the Society of Actuaries (London) in 1899.

2. In many cases we do not know the exact day/hour someone is born. Someone may appear to be older at '41,821' days than someone who is '41,820' days. But let's suppose that person A was born at 11PM and died at 1AM, they lived 41,820 days and 2 hours, they get credit as 41,821 'days'. But the second person was born at 1 AM and died at 11PM, they get credit for 41,820 days, but they actually lived 41,820 days and 22 hours. Thus, based on the scientific concept of 'sigificant digits', we shouldn't really be over-focusing on extreme/exact amounts like this...we simply don't have enough information to conclude who is older.

3. The 'equal' rankings were also done to conform to Microsoft Excel, which uses the years/days to calculate the ages.

I'd appreciate it if you could point this out, that it is not simply a matter of the GRG not knowing math.

Sincerely, Robert Young"

1. From the point of view of the public, it makes a lot of sense to use age in years and days because people will not be able to understand how old someone of 44,000 days is. However from a scientific point of view, some people have lived through more leap years than others. As there are many ties in this list, they need to be accounted for. For Guinness, I feel that age in days is more or less irrelevant, as they are unlikely to list tied people for years and days, who differ by one leap day. The first people to be tied are ranked #33. I would be surprised if Guinness lists more than 20/25 of the oldest people ever.

2. This is true, but this also applies to the year and days format so I don't feel it is a relevant point when deciding between two formats. Unfortunately length of life can't be calculated so accurately in most cases. The fact remains though that 'age in days' is more accurate than 'age in days and years', the latter of which I feel adds an unnecessary error when they are used to rank by age. I think the table should be ranked by age in days, but keeping the age in years and days column so that people can actually interpret the ages.

3. With help, I discovered that it is possible for Excel to also calculate their age in days - including the leap years. Unfortunately, Excel counts 1900 as a leap year, which it wasn't.

=DATE([Year of Death]+2000,[Month of death (number)],[Date of death])-DATE([Year of birth]+2000,[Month of birth (number)],[Date of birth])

The +2000 shifts the years on 2000 years to account for 1900, as it knows 3900 is not a leap year.

In summary, it would be more accurate to use age in days to rank the people. I think it would improve list BB if the existing 'age in days' column was replaced by the above formula, or similar, that accounts for leap years.SiameseTurtle (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not really the point: we could have two persons tied even after factoring in leap days. Since it's becoming slightly easier to live long over time, a more recent occurrence of the exact same life span is slightly less significant than getting there first.Ryoung122 05:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If we have two people tied for age in days, then I agree, the earliest should be put first. However if two people are tied for 'age in years and days', but person A lived through one more leap year than person B, then person A should be placed above person B even if person B was born earlier. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ties while living

Greetings,

Recently I have noticed that when a living person on this list "ties" the person above them, they are placed above them. In my opinion this is too soon because it presumes they will still be alive the next day. It's better to not move them above the previous entry until they have cleared them by one day.Ryoung122 03:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not entirely correct. It is not done on an arbitrary basis. Please keep in mind (when tied) the order in which they are listed has no meaning or precedent, they are all considered the same in "likeness." With that said, if an individual has a "day count" which exceeds another by one day when tied, they are placed above to maintain numerical order, and not appear sloppy. If the situation were to occur that an individual is found to be deceased the prior day, the table would be adjusted in the same manner irregardless of placement within the tie. It is important to note that neither placement within a tie, nor numerical "day count" have any effect or meaning in ranking. Thanks. TFBCT1 (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously that's not true, or you wouldn't bother to put those with a higher day count on the top. So far all of the deceased cases are listed with the first tiebreaker age count, and the second tiebreaker chronological order. I'm simply asking the updaters to respect this. It's not too much to ask.Ryoung122 19:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryoung on this. Either we rank them by age count or we don't. To stick those with a superior day count, when the sources fail to do so, on top of someone suggests a superior rank when the sources fail to make such a distinction. If we were to go by daycount here, there'd be an argument to rank that way. But we don't, so if the year/day is tied, the next tiebreaker, as Ryoung says, is chronological order, not day count. Canada Jack (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Age in Days is merely subsidiary information and should have no effect on the list. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk)

The age in days is certainly not subsidiary information. How can we have a legitimate list of the oldest people if we don't put them in the correct order? Why should an older person be placed below someone who was younger than them? While the GRG doesn't list people by age in days, it does give the dates of birth and death, so calculating the age in days is not original research. Neither is putting tied people ranked by their age in days. Quite frankly, this list should be about listing people by the length of their life. The argument for listing them by age in days is because it is more accurate and doesn't discriminate those who lived through more leap years. Where's the sense in saying that a day that someone lived through doesn't count towards their age? It's unscientific to say it doesn't. Day count should come before chronological order because they should be ranked by their age. They shouldn't be ranked by their age with a separate clause so that if they have lived through one more leap year than someone else, they should be placed below. The fact remains that 'age in days' is a more accurate ranking than 'age in days and years'. SiameseTurtle (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How can we have a legitimate list of the oldest people if we don't put them in the correct order? But therein lies the rub. The "correct order" is what the sources determine. And if you care to visit the GRG, they go by a) year/day then b) chronological order. So, while here we have Ura Koyama on top of Carrie Lazenby, both whom died at 114/218, but Lazenby died first, GRG lists them in chronological order. [1] Besides if they are "tied" at 34th place, clearly that is because they have identical year/day counts. To put one ahead of the other owing to day count suggests that is a superior claim even though they are tied by year/day count. But the sources don't say this.

I think one aspect of what Robert said above in September is that we shouldn't sweat it when there is a question of one day's difference. Because the level of accuracy here isn't 24 hours, it's more like close to 48 hours (or even more when a claimant was born in Europe and died in the Americas). IOW, we are presuming a level of accuracy here that can't really be determined. Besides, it is original research to change the rank based on a criterion - day count - that the sources don't seem to apply.

As to the ultimate argument about which is the most accurate count, I agree there is an argument to be made that day count is more accurate than year/day count. But the sources have, for whatever reason, chosen the latter count. And, as I say above, to be truly "scientific" about it, the ages of these people have an associated error of close to 48 hours, so sticking so closely to this day discrepancy (which is at most, owing to leap years, a single day), ignores the fact that that margin of error is smaller than the margin of error already in place. Canada Jack (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The sources list them as tied. On this list they are still tied, although the order is rearranged occasionally. That's not original research - their rank is still the same here, as is their age at death.

2. That's applies to both year and day and day counts, so it's really an irrelevant point when deciding between the two formats. It would also bring about a lot of problems. We have someone at 114, 94 who would then be tied with the people below at 114, 93. Then they would be tied with the people below at 114, 92.

3. There's no point in adding in an extra error just because we have a larger one. Regardless of the size of the other error, ignoring leap years just adds to the total error. For the reason above, we can't realistically change it to a format where there is no error, because then we have problems with assigning ranks. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryoung122, lets not be so presumptuous and stick to the published facts. JBsupreme (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The sources list them as tied, yet on these pages we seemingly add a new criterion - if the day count is superior, then that person is placed above even though they are "tied." But either they are "tied" via year/day count, or they are not. To place one above another suggests one has a superior claim which is original research.

2. The point is that re-ordering by using a different criterion than used by the sources makes little sense when the level of accuracy is coarser than the discrepancy via day count. No one is suggesting that we therefore consider people one or two days apart are therefore "tied." What is being suggested is that to insist on the day count as being "scientific" is in fact not based on the level of accuracy we really have here.

3. But if the "true" age of a person (assuming the dates of birth and death are accurate) can only be determining within a margin of error of about 48 hours, by insisting that a daycount is somehow "more" accurate ignores that the difference we are talking about - one day at most - falls within the 48 hour margin of error! As Robert pointed out, while certainly not perfect, the year/day count is within the margin of error and the illusion of a "more" accurate rendering via daycount is simply that - an illusion. It is quite possible, for example, for a person with a superior day count to have lived several hours shorter than someone one day shorter. Therefore to insist on reordering these people by that basis implies a level of accuracy which in fact is not present. In the end, we should simply reproduce what the sources determine and cease pretending "our" method is more accurate. It really isn't. Canada Jack (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

1. To place one above the other does not imply a superior claim - they have the same rank. Those of equal rank have the same claim. That is why they're tied. Calculationg the age in days through Wikipedia is not original research either.

2. It's as scientific as we can get without knowing the times of birth and death, which many people do not know, records rarely exist and for many the data is lost forever.

3. It's not an illusion at all. An analogy to what you said is that a statement such as 41863±2 (ie. age in days) is just as accurate as 41863±3 (ie. age in years and days) because the extra ±1 is smaller than the original ±2. Clearly it's not the case. Age in days is more accurate. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

1: If they have the same rank, why is someone born later put above someone born before? Intuitively, we'd put people, if tied, in order of birth. But that's not what is happening in some cases, despite that criterion being applied in the original sources. Clearly, the order is being changed by applying a criterion the sources are not applying. Which is original research.

2: It's not as "scientific as we can get," because the margin of error is close to two days. If it was less than one day, you'd have a point. By applying your criterion, you are implying that these people would be older if we went by day rank. But that is not something we can actually determine given the margin of error.

3: You seem to miss the point, Siamese. If the margin of error going by date of birth is in fact greater than the "more accurate" rendering by day count (which also has the same margin of error), and people "older" by day count can actually be younger than a person supposedly younger, how is day count "more accurate"?

Let's be clear here: We are talking two separate accuracies here. One is what count more accurately reflects days elapsed. And the day count will be more accurate as it will reflect a missed leap year date and the year/day count may miss that. But the margin of error there is a single day. The second accuracy is whether a specific count with a render in days is accurate to within 24 hours. It isn't. It is accurate to within closer to two days. But insisting on pushing the former criterion as making the count "more scientific" doesn't work in this case because the margin of error for the crucial piece of information - what day a person was born and died - is greater than the the supposed "correction" brought by applying the day count (which corrects by a maximum of a single day).

And, ultimately, we are not here at wikipedia given the liberty of second-guessing or correcting the sources from which this information comes from. While I don't think there is a problem with including the day count, there is a problem in "correcting" the rank - even if it is limited to placing one person above another person when tied - when the sources choose not to do so. They may have carefully considered the very point you raise, and have decided, perhaps by my logic, not to apply a correction. Or perhaps they haven't considered it, or have another reason here. Whatever. The point is if a change is to be made, it should not be made here, it should be made by them. Canada Jack (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Are we able to reach a consensus on this issue yet? The majority of updates still seem to be by users who are using the day count as a means of ordering ties. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't agree. If a value is 10±2 then you wouldn't call it 9, even though it's within the margin of error. Secondly, as 1900 wasn't a leap year, in the future this will become even more of an issue. It's already evident in Margaret Ann Neve's case as 1800 and 1900 were not leap years. If ranked by years and days then it's biased in favour of newer cases. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You have failed to address the salient points, Siamese: #1) why "correct" for a margin of error of one day when the margin of error for the most important measure - the age of an individual - is almost two days and #2) since when do we apply a criterion the sources do not apply? That's original research. Even if you arguments are 100 per cent water-tight, the sources are not applying your arguments. Therefore we can't. Canada Jack (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As for this becoming more of an issue, correct me if I am wrong, but the maximum discrepancy here - since we have no cases at least on this page of people who had two dropped leap years (ie. were alive in two of the following years: 1700, 1800, 1900) then the maximum discrepancy we are talking about is a single day. I point out, again, that this is within the margin of error. And there is no such thing as a more "scientific" measure if that correction is smaller than the margin of error already in place. No more than, say, discovering a 100-metre race timed to the tenth of a second is "faster" if the track in one race was found to be 30cm longer. Because the margin of error is greater than the time it would take to run the extra foot, someone timed at the same time could not be confidently said to have run "faster" as the margin of error in terms of time is bigger. Canada Jack (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding placement within ties which I have discussed before, here are the points I'd like to make: It does not matter who is on top or who is on the bottom, placement within a tie is irrelevant to ranking. Once again, they both share the same rank. The second point is regarding numeric order within the "age in days" category. It makes sense to preserve numeric order if one person has lived an additional "day." It does not affect the rank and looks orderly. This is not in contention with the original source in that there are no updated materials in which to gauge or compare. I make 90% of the updates to the table and this is the rationale I follow. On a separate issue of the one day discrepancy this eventually will be a two day discrepancy once the anomaly of "no leap year in 1900" is no longer applicable. TFBCT1 (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter who is on top, then it seems the solution here is obvious - simply rank them the way the original sources rank them. Which is chronological. And, again, while it may "make sense" to rank by number of days, that is not what the original sources do when two people are tied by year/day but not by days. If, for example, Ms Favre who you put above the other person died today, then if the GRG follow past practice, she'd be ranked beneath the person despite the extra day. If you look at Epstein, at GRG, this is the way they do it.

As for it "looking orderly," it most certainly does not. The most obvious way to rank when tied is by chronological order. By doing otherwise implies the people are not tied. Which, in my books is a good argument to remove the day count. What this boils down to is: Are we ranking these people by the manner the sources do? Or are we applying an additional criterion? By changing the ranking as you do in this manner - and to pretend you are not is specious reasoning - is original research.

And, again, if you don't like the way the ranking here is, then go to the sources and ask them to change their ranking criterion.

I make 90% of the updates to the table and this is the rationale I follow. On a separate issue of the one day discrepancy this eventually will be a two day discrepancy once the anomaly of "no leap year in 1900" is no longer applicable.

Alas, your rationale is not the rationale the sources apply. Which is the point. Again, you may have the best, most cogent reasons for doing what you are doing. You may be 100 per cent correct. But we are not here to "correct" the sources. Canada Jack (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you reverted and applied your original research again, with an implied threat: "I am not playing games here." Uh, neither am I. Here is what we should do here. Since the sources we use list the tied people chronologically, you have to come up with some rock-solid reason why we can ignore wikipedia practice and apply a different ranking rationale for tied people. Since I count three editors who don't think we should do so, it would seem that you have some more convincing to do here. IOW, the onus is on you to defend adding a criterion, it is not on me or the others to explain why we shouldn't. Canada Jack (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, TB, you do not respect how wikipedia operates - having reverted something three times. I will give you the opportunity now to change back to the manner in which the sources have it, then we can discuss whether we should be adding a criterion. Remember, the point here is not how cogent your argument here is on the need for a different way of ranking, the point is should we be applying a criterion the sources themselves do not apply. Canada Jack (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The precedent for ties is established in #41 & #44. They are "deceased" within the tie and are not in chronological order, but in "age in days" order. No ranking issues involved. There also is no conflict with GRG in that they don't keep their tables updated in order to have any comparison. If this is going to cause such heated arguements I can very well remove "age in days" altogether, seeing that I added it to the table back in April. TFBCT1 (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If something has been done wrong consistently, or something inaccurate has been on a page for an extended period of time, there is no "grandfather" clause at wikipedia to keep it that way simply because the "precedent" has been set. Which is why, I note, not a single person has raised a peep so far about my changes to the Martha Graham info we had on this page. For ages, we had "c. Dec. 27 1844" as her birthdate. Until I double-checked after an exchange with Robert and realized we only knew she was born in December, we had information there that someone had put in erroneously back-tracking her age (114y, c.180) and came up with c.Dec 27. Trouble was that estimate was based on only knowing she was born in December! It is not an argument, IOW, to say "well we've had it that way for ages" if the information does not match the sources.

AS for the question here, let's take a look at how #41 and #44 are ranked in the original sources. (I think you mean #41 and #45). Epstein [2] doesn't have Kott for #41, so we can't compare there, but has Louise after the other two so is therefore applying a "chronological" rule. GRG [3] also omits Kott, but, as with Epstein, has Louise after the two previously born women despite having the "superior" day count. IOW, if we are to consider the sources as the arbritars here - and since the chief sources both apply the "chronological" rule, then we at wikipedia are forced to apply their criteria, even if we have a good argument to apply another one. We can't, in other words, second-guess our sources especially when the sources agree on ranking the people in this manner. Canada Jack (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"102" oldest not useful

Now that Beatrice Favre has knocked off the two other ladies who were tied for 100th place on the all-time list of oldest people, perhaps we can dispense with the rather silly insistence on some here on saying this is the "102 oldest" or "101 oldest" ever when several people are tied for 100th place. This is a list of 100 oldest people, not any other number. In the same way if an unlikely scenario occurred where five people were tied as the oldest person ever, we'd not say this was a list of the "five" oldest people ever, but the oldest person, with five people tied, we should consistently call this a list of the "100" people ever as the ranking is 100 deep, not any greater number, To do otherwise is to suggest we are keeping track of an ever-changing number of oldest people. In the past several days, 101 to 102 to 100. No, we are keeping track of 100, and if someone is tied at 100 we need not confuse matters by suggesting this is anything other than a list of the top 100. Canada Jack (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick question..why are we limiting it to 100 people? What happens when somebody is added to the list? Does somebody else get bumped off it? I have a problem with that. If you're "afraid of the list getting 300+ people on it", i.e. the weak "slippery slope" argument, you must be high. --75.170.40.194 (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Addenda" list

Greetings,

The main point of this article is "further information" that would be too tedious to be on the oldest people main page. I suggest we take advantage of that point by adding cases beyond 100, equal to the number of disputed cases in the top 100.

In other words, for Izumi, add an alternate. For C White, add an alternate. For Hongo, add an alternate. For Butariu, add an alternate.

Part of Wikipedia policy is pluralism...reflecting major points of view, including a significant minority viewpoint.

In this case, the scientific, skeptical POV does not see Izumi, White, Hongo, Butariu, etc as valid cases.

Finally, adding an addenda list will make it easier to undo a "101st-deletion" if, for example, someone just died a week ago, or a case is debunked as false.

Sincerely, Ryoung122 20:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Robert on this, as it was in the back of my mind already. The list could be, in the text, described as the "100 oldest verified people, with additions as some of those 'verified' cases are controversial. While some of the 'verified' cases may not be true, there are at least enough people added to make the list include the top 100 undisputed claims."

Might be an argument there to do that with some of the other lists, on the men's 100 page, and on the "oldest person" page. Canada Jack (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to do it due to potential COI issues. However, it's true that some of the cases on this list were mistakenly included by wrong decisions in the past, or due to political-correctness. We're only talking about maybe five cases. Having an addenda list would also make it easier to correct an error in case someone that was "living" actually died a few days ago. For example, if Kama Chinen died in October, she would not be in the top 100, right?Ryoung122 04:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The graph

I really don't think this serves much more of a purpose than decorating the article.

1. A rough estimate from each country can be seen from the list already 2. It's not clear on how it's calculated. For example, is it based on place of birth, place of death, or place of birth/death weighted as 0.5 if different, or place of birth/death weighted as 1 even if different? 3. It's already out of date as Lucy d'Abreu is not on the table any more. If this is going to be used then it would have to be updated regularly, which can't be guaranteed. I think graphs should be reserved for those lists that are unlikely to change frequently.

Thoughts? SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I was already wondering how to edit the graph to reflect the fact that Lucy d'Abreu is no longer listed. And is Kama Chinen now included? I cannot tell. So I'm in agreement with all the above. TFBCT1 (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the graph does not seem add anything to this article. And unless its parameters are properly defined and it is going to be kept up to date there is no really reason to keep it. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am removing the graph in that it does not provide substantial enhancement to any area of the present article or table, and the chart in current form contains errors. TFBCT1 (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking for nationality

Is there a reason there are multiple Wikilinks for each nation? For example, there are 50+ wikilinks to USA in this article. Are they necessary (for example autocounting)?Ryoung122 04:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's mainly for convenience - just having to use {USA}. However I don't think it would be helpful in a table like this to only link the top one. In some tables I want to click on the link, only to find that I have to go and hunt for it further up the table. SiameseTurtle (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove the disputed cases from the list!

It's interesting that there are lots of disputed peoples (lots of question marks) on such a list whose name is "list of the verified oldest people". I would remove all of them. Otherwise this puts the list to the category of joke.

Those people were (mostly) verified at their death and have been questioned subsequently. Unless there is conclusive proof that the verification was in error they remain "verified". DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although I do think we should give more information about why there is a dispute, and what the dispute is so that it can be left up to the reader to decide if they include them or not. SiameseTurtle (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Hagel Dead?

Is Catherine Hagel dead, I heard she died yesterday. Is there any truth in this. --Audrey Knight (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt matter, shes dead. My condolences. --Audrey Knight (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Longest Living POLISH people.

Please help us. we are from Poland very big database, not published.

for more information , please contakt Wolfgang on Wikipedia -Poland

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Wolfgang/brudnopis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.218 (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to be mostly longevity claims...not reliable.Ryoung122 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Note

On January 20, 2009, not only will the next American president take office, but the person who has been in the top 100 the longest on this chart will be removed. (Or at least it's likely.) Star Garnet (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

By that, I of course meant that Delfina Filkins will be gone. Star Garnet (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean January 20, 2009? Delina Filkins?

By the way, I suggested making an addenda list that is equivalent to the number of disputed cases.Ryoung122 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i am relatively new to this page and don't quite understand: will Ms Filkins be gone because of a number of increasingly older candidates who are currently "bubbling under" the Top 100? Cheers, tomasz. 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There are a couple of living people aged 113y, 180/170d who will break into the top 100 soon (Manuela Fernandez-Fojaco, and Olivia Thomas). If they pass Filkins then she will drop out of the top 100. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but she was undispusted and found to be fully verifiable, what we can't say for many peoples on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.44.137 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, as per Robert's suggestion, we should somehow highlight the questionable cases, maybe simply by italicizing them. After all, on GRG, there are codes depicting the level of verification for various individuals, so we'd simply be applying a form of qualification for some cases which others have highlighted. I think we need also to, on this page, describe for each case which is in dispute the nature of the dispute. This can be a brief note like "Some suspect Izumi may have been 105 at death," and "Some suspect White may have been 102 at death." Canada Jack (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If all are surviving Delina Filkins will be tied on January 29, 2009, and fall off the list January 30. TFBCT1 (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendum added

As most here have no doubt noticed, I took the liberty of adding an addendum of extra verified claims which bring the undisputed list of claims here to 100 individuals. I know that at least one member here was adamant against this list, but I feel it is justified for the following reasons: #1: None of the sources we generally use have a "Top 100" list per se, so the numbering we use here borders on original research; and #2: Various sources dispute or note dispute with some of these individuals, so if they were to have a numbered list, they may not include those questionable claims. The simplest thing therefore is to include with an addendum a number of unquestioned claims equal to the number of questioned claims.

I, however, count six claims, not the seven that the addendum now includes. Just to clarify, here are what I identified as the six disputed claims:

1: Shig Izumi (may be 105); 2: Carrie White (may be 102); 3: Kamato Hongo (I understand she may have been younger as some records are inconsistent, but how much younger? If only by a year it should be noted); 4: Anitica Butariu (uncertain as to what the dispute is - is this questioned because the authorities in Romania haven't revealed their criteria for acceptance?); 5: Mathew Beard (is this here because the main claim comes from US Social Security records?); 6: Moses Hardy (may have been 112). Accordingly, the list addendum should omit the seventh claim. Canada Jack (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I see elsewhere that with Hongo, the question is whether she was 115 or 116. Therefore, she would be on the list regardless, and therefore the addendum should be FIVE deep. Canada Jack (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Kamato Hongo "may be 110"...Belgian demographer Michel Poulain believes she was only 110, not 115 or 116. This research is to be published soon (I already have the manuscript).

Some more comments: Mitsu Fujisawa could be a 7th case. I have reasons to doubt that one (but nothing has been published). Moses Hardy, if not 113, was at least 112 so that is the least disputable case. With Romania, that was a case that the GRG accepted early (Louis Epstein also accepted cases like Janina Izykowska of Poland, 116, since dropped). Although nothing has been published to dispute the Butariu claim, the articles from 1997 claimed that Dr. Victor Arsenie had the documents for this case, but we have not been able to find him. As for Mathew Beard, the SSA accepted the case but it was a questionable census match (they had a scoring system, with 4=very good match, 3=good match, 2=marginal match, 1=inconclusive, 0=not a match). Beard's case scored a 2...I personally suggested they not accept. Ironically, though, the Beard age claim was to 116 or so, so he could have been even older.Ryoung122 19:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

An addenda fulfills Wikipedia's call for a pluralistic view, one that incorporates major points of view. Cases like Izumi are accepted by some authorities, not by others.Ryoung122 15:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty here to add footnotes for the disputed cases, and included a note about Robert's doubt on Fujisawa's claim. However, that may not pass muster in terms of wiki-style, so please correct if need by. Also, it seems Star Garnet was of a similar mind, though with a different solution and we tried to change the page simulateously. But I think that putting a table into the "notes" section is problematic and aesthetically clumsy. But that's my opinion. See if my solution (footnotes for the disputed claims) better addresses this or sufficiently addresses this. Canada Jack (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the addendum should be made a section or subsection? Star Garnet (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on addendum. I remember reading a time back that Nelle Hunt was also a disputed case and may even have been debunked. Does anybody no if this is true? And if so, should she be listed as a proven case? Thanks. TFBCT1 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The other "can of worms" is that a lot of cases could be open to question. Nelle Hunt's age is confirmed by a 1900 census listing, among other things. Women in mid-life often understate their age, and sometimes this gets misintepreted.Ryoung122 14:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. TFBCT1 (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The oldest people, Maria de Jesus dead

See: 14-year-old U.S. woman to be world's oldest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.145.232 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm older than 14! Missing a century?Ryoung122 10:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Real purpose of these lists

The real purpose of these lists should be to show the demographics of longevity...the whole argument about age verification is that when the process is rigorous, then claims such as that of Thomas Parr are seen as nonsensical, impossible. Look how tight the data is, just days (and sometimes less) separate those outside the top 10.Ryoung122 15:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Mitsu Fujisawa

I don't want to call this case into question unless I find an article that explicitly says so. I do have doubts about this case, but not enough to put a ? mark by her name. For one, she enrolled in a university at 112 and took exercise classes at 112. However, finding the original news articles from 1988 will be difficult. Remember, I finally found the Izumi smoking gun but that took years.Ryoung122 10:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a note to the main page on her mentioning your concerns - should I omit it until something more concrete emerges? Canada Jack (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it - it's original research in its purest form. Someone, it doesn't matter who it is, makes a claim on a Wikipedia talk page with no sources whatsoever and freely admits as much. Material that is not verifiable may be removed at any time. Cheers, CP 17:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right call. I shouldn't have put it in in the first place. Canada Jack (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was not "original research"...the research was done 20 years ago:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/11978

Mitsu Fujisawa apparently a fake

I'm currently reading the Japanese Wikipedia article on Seki Takewara (January 11, 1878 - March 2, 1987). If I'm understanding it correctly, the last paragraph states that Mitsu Fujisawa turned out to be a fake, being born in 1890 instead of 1876. Here's how I understand it:

According to the article, Fujisawa's family members had doubts about her true age, so in 1989 the Longevity Award Committee of Japan decided to investigate this. The investigation revealed that Fujisawa's real first name was Kosayo (born 1890), and that the original Mitsu Fujisawa died young and Kosayo was using her older sister's name and birthdate. In March 1989, Fujisawa's family petitioned the Ministry of Welfare to correct this error, but the Ministry couldn't find any credible evidence to support the petition. However, in April 1989, the Longevity Award Committee of Japan decided to posthumously give the "Japan's Oldest Person" title to Seki Takewara for the period of May 21, 1986 to March 2, 1987 (Which, BTW, would've meant that Japan had no supercentenarians from the death of Ine Tsugawa on May 21, 1986 until Waka Shirahama's 110th birthday on March 26, 1988!).

Can someone read the article and see whether my understanding/interpretation is accurate?

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%8E%9F%E3%82%BB%E3%82%AD

The issue was whether the original Japanese article or articles debunking this case can be located, not whether it is original research.Ryoung122 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the wikipedia article, nothing can be found on this on the web as far as I can find. I don't doubt the wikipedia article is correct, but I don't know where a source for it can be found. No "list-of-oldest japanese" contains Mitsu Fujisawa though. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Woman, 107, seeks husband

nice article: telegraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.195 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Tuti Yusupova

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7857591.stm

I don't know if you have come across this claim of 128 years old before, but it appears that officials discovered her when performing a sweep of birth certificates of people over 100 years old and living. Well worth watching that news article. RichyBoy (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Take this to "longevity claims." As its been pointed out, a 1997 Microsoft Word printout is NOT an 1880 birth certificate.Ryoung122 13:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's OK because I wasn't saying she was a verified person; I was merely drawing attention to the claim to start with in the unlikely event that it went overlooked by you guys that do all the work. I'm unaware of all of the related wiki pages and there is no reason why I should be, of course, now I know in the future I can put this onto a more relevant discussion page. RichyBoy (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

couting years + days vs. days?

I just updated the table because I thought there was a mistake. According to this table, someone could have lived for more days than someone else, yet be ranked lower. Today, this was the case with Numbers 80 and 81 in the table (Mary Josephine Ray, and Luce Maced). I understand that the difference it due to leap years.

What I am questioning is why we count the misleading number of (years + days) instead of just days? Shouldn't we be listing the people in the order of oldest to youngest? If you have lived for a longer amount of time (in other words more days), should you not be considered "older"?

If there is interest in changing this, then the bot that updates this table needs to be changed. 137.82.175.12 (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We've had this discussion already. And while there may indeed be a good argument to make that going by day-count is more accurate, the sources we get this information from (GRG, Epstein) both rank by year/day. Why? Because very few people reckon someone's age by the number of days they lived. Do you routinely measure how long you live by how many days you've lived, or by years and days? Further, since both the sources, when by year/day are tied, they rank chronologically and not by day-count. See, for example, Carrie Lazenby and Ura Koyama. Both lived 114 years, 218 days. But Koyama lived an extra day by day-count, yet both sources put Lazenby above Koyama. I have argued that, therefore, to do anything other than what the sources do is employing a new criterion - rank by day-count - and therefore is original research. Therefore, the ones to convince to change should be the sources, not here at wikipedia. However, while that argument has won the day in the case of how we rank living people against the dead with the same year/day count but not day count, the placements for the dead are still by day-count, which I argue is original research.

Further, to argue that day-count is more accurate is misleading. The year/day count is accurate to within a day (currently) of actual time lived. However, since we don't note the particluar hour of birth and death, the "day" count actually has a margin of error of greater than a day anyway! So it is entirely possible for someone who is supposedly a day "older" than another person to have actually lived less time than that person. Therefore, I have argued, the greater "accuracy," since it is smaller than the margin of error, isn't truly more "accurate" a measure of longevity than some seem to think. Canada Jack (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. You are correct. In most cases, we do not have the actual hour of birth and hour of death. In fact, in some cases the date of birth is a "factored" number...an estimate. The SSA study randomly distributed birthdates as 1, 15, or 30 for cases with only a known month of birth.

In science, a digit is not "significant" if the result is less than the margin of error. Trying to 'correct' for leap day is simply missing the point. The point should be how close the data is aligned (which indicates a biological limit to human longevity) rather than whom ranks ahead of whom.Ryoung122 03:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's like fussing over thousands of a second in a 100 metre race when you don't have the ability to measure the distance to within a metre. Canada Jack (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. I understand that the margin of error may well be more than a day. But this is not a supporting argument for choosing (years + days) over (days). In fact, the most convincing argument your have proposed is that the day-count is original research and should therefore be removed altogether. I would certainly favour removing this column, because otherwise it is simply misleading (it's not how we rank them, and it reflects an amount of accuracy that isn't there). 137.82.175.12 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Btw, coincidentally, today the problem has manifest itself again with Gertrude Baines and Mary Bidwell. I propose the "Age in days" column should be removed, due to accuracy problems, original research, and the confusing situations that occur on days like today. 137.82.175.12 (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the original research argument is the best one, but others continually argue that to count by days is more "scientific," which, I suppose, means they mean it is more accurate. Robert says it most succinctly when he said In science, a digit is not "significant" if the result is less than the margin of error. AS for going ahead and removing the days column, there might be some resistance to that as I doubt there would be consensus here to do so. Canada Jack (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely be in favour of removal of the Age in Days column. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

130 year old woman from kazakhstan

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1164503/Is-woman-really-old-LIGHT-BULB-Oldest-person-world-set-celebrate-130th-birthday.html Seems legit; census info, birth cert. and all. Is this source correct? Recent article...Figured I'd ask you guys first.--Lvivske (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Legit? Not even close in the sense of "verified" as required for this article. This should be in Longevity claims, only just though as 130 is the maximum age accepted for initial claims on that page, otherwise it would be a longevity myth, which is probably more accurate in any case. DerbyCountyinNZ 08:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at that 1979 passport photo. Way too young looking for a 100-year-old. --75.170.40.194 (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

114-year-old Nigerian in news, probably false claim...

This has really been making the rounds in the news lately.
http://www.javno.com/en-world/114-year-old-nigerian-arrested-with-marijuana_244895
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n325/a03.html
Probably a false claim. Over there when anybody gets over about 90 their ages start to get blurred and exaggerated, i.e. the "village elder"/"wise old man" syndrome. Thoughts? --75.170.40.194 (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)