Talk:List of the verified oldest people

Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archives

Emma Morano

Please note that Emma Morano's name should not be reported as "Morano-Martinuzzi" because it is not a double-barrelled name. She was just Emma Morano and was known as such until she married mr Martinuzzi. Following Italy's naming customs, they added the husband's surname after her surname (naming custom: Name Originalsurname Husbandssurname). But it's not a double-barrelled name case. That's why she is reported in Italian media as "Emma Morano Martinuzzi" or just "Emma Morano". Alternatives in Italy are "Emma Morano coniugata Martinuzzi" (coniugata means "married to"), "Emma Morano in Martinuzzi", and may sometimes be mentioned as "Emma Martinuzzi". No hypen in any case. Please consider removing the hyphen, because it is a mistake (no one in Italy would write Morano-Martinuzzi). Thank you, A. from Italy --87.20.34.84 (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I already said that twice. The hyphen was temporarily removed, but later came back. Among other reasons, it should be considered the Italian family law, which before 1975 simply gave the married woman the husband's name (as in the U.S.) and later allowed her to just add it to her maiden name. Very few Italian women use their husband's name, and never like that: in any case, with no hyphen at all. But Wikipedia is deaf. --Erinaceus (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand where you have seen the Italian media reporting the surname of Emma Morano as Morano Martinuzzi (with or without hypen). This can be verified here "http://www.corriere.it/cronache/15_febbraio_16/emma-115-anni-ecco-piu-vecchia-d-europa-il-segreto-essere-single-31faa930-b5c7-11e4-bb5e-b90de9daadbe.shtml?refresh_ce-cp", simply Martinuzzi is not reported anywhere.

The cited alternatives as "coniugata" or "in" now are very rarely used in Italy (but are corrected) and, absolutely, the number of women that are using only the husband's surname can be counted in units. Very quickly, after 1975, any reference (for the married women) to the husband's surname has been removed. Just for example, in Italy nobody thinks to call "Agnese Landini" as "Agnese Renzi" (or "Agnese Landini-Renzi") just because she has married Matteo Renzi (the Italian Prime Minister). If you read one million of articles on the Italian Wikipedia you can verify this. So, "Emma Morano" is only "Emma Morano" and the same is true for the other women in the list (as "Virginia Dighero-Zolezzi", "Venere Pizzinato-Papo" etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.39.156.253 (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not ranking them in total days?

Why are people on this list not ranked by their lifespan given in total days? It would make the list fairer, because you take away (un)fortunate (dis)advantages resulting through leap years. All people born after 28th February 1900 have to live one extra day to attain the same rank as people born before that date, if you leave it like it is now. At least one could put in another column showing the age in total days as it is in the german version of this list, so one can easily see and decide for oneself who should be in which spot. 62.46.196.0 (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Triple R

We had this discussion several years ago. We don't need to most basically because the main source lists ages by years/days rather than days, and people are more familiar with the former then the latter in terms of measuring age. Would the average person have a concept of how long 40,000 days is? No. But most people can understand how long 115 years is.

Further, and I was the one largely making this point, nit-picking over the "extra day" owing to the lack of a leap year in 1900 etc forgets that the margin of error for a person's life span is greater than the single day you speak of. In other words, someone born shortly after midnight, and dying shortly before midnight would be almost two full days older than a person born just before midnight and dying just after midnight, even if they both were born and died on the same days. And this doesn't take into account cultural practices such as considering the end of a day being at sundown in some places, and the differences in time zones if someone moved to from say Europe to America.

In the end, given the sources' use of year/day format and its universality, and the built-in margin of error, means changing to a day-only system implies a level of accuracy which is not present. Canada Jack (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Supercentenarians

Why was the article "List of Supercentenarians" merged with the "List of verified oldest people"? I though it was very interesting what was going on beyond the 4-6 people in the "verified oldest"-List and also the claims that are in verification process. Any explanation for this? 2A02:908:D234:BF80:6030:3EC0:EA9D:3CA9 (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2015

oldest person verified is Zaro Aga. Balciburak (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This list is for verified oldest people. Stickee (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

134 year old claimed oldrest

please look into this Is this wolrld oldest person?Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This would go under Longevity claims. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Frank Hatch worlds oldest living person.

Andrew Frank Hatch is the worlds oldest living person .He has been the oldest living person from the death of Gertrude Weaver on April 6, 2015. He was born October 7, 1898 in Louisiana. His age is confirmed by the Federal Social Security Department and official tax documents dated back to the 1940's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.63.131 (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't check any of the other pages on this subject here at wikipedia. If you go to Longevity claims, you will find Mr. Hatch's claim. He is there as he has no contemporary or near-contemporary documentation for his claimed date of birth, the records you cite only go back to the 1940s where Hatch would be in his 40s at least. Also, please note, even if we take the claim at face value, far from being the "world's oldest living person," there are some two dozen or so alive in the past two years or so who claim to be older. As I've often noted, those who passionately push the claim of "world's oldest" despite lack of documentation seem to nevertheless dismiss OTHERS who make similar claims without documentation! Canada Jack (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If the United States government believes he was born October 7, 1898 so do I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.63.131 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not proof of anything if the earliest record they have is from when he was in his 40s. Besides, what about those 20+ other people on the list claiming earlier birthdates? Your guy is the only guy with a real birthdate?

But enough of that, if you'd like some more on this case, and an idea of how seriously these claims are taken (and this one has been taken seriously), do a google search under his full name (wikipedia blocks the link I tried to post) and there is quite a lot of discussion on this case, a lot of census research has been done. The main stumbling block here is it seems the family has not been forthcoming or helpful, so it's hard to disprove (for example, what were his parents' names). Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

He has a proven trail back to 1942 where he has claimed to have been born on October 7, 1898. That is 73 years. The US government backs up his claim. Social Security. Tax records, Drivers license and cab license. All verifiable and traceable back to nearly 3/4 of a century. He is the oldest living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.63.131 (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You should check out the discussions I referred to above. The issue is not how long he has claimed to have be born in 1898, the issue is how distant is the original documentation from the event in question - his birth. In this case, he was 43/44 if your dates are accurate, and that is no basis for a credible claim. If he had no documentation other than an attestation in 1942, and America was at war, the possibility of age exaggeration can't be ruled out. Not to say he wanted to avoid service, but it would not have been hard for someone who was 33 then to claim he was 43 to avoid serving. To rule out that possibility, more information is needed, and in this case, we are lacking it. In 1942, oral claims were often taken as a given as large numbers of people had unrecorded births (or claimed as much)- so once he had that date recorded, then he could use it going forward, if that is what he did. This is a recurring problem in gerontology, and most claims of individuals who lived supposedly long lives were found to have given wrong dates of birth at some point.

The census research done that I've seen suggests he is most probably about 105, as there seem to be better matches there. His past is murky - his relatives are very vague about certain details of his life and there are no positive matches for his claims. Indeed, his daughter looks far too young to have been fathered by him - she looks 50 at most, meaning he was a parent at 66 or so. Possible, but not likely. Someone his age routinely has ggg grandchildren. Canada Jack (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As it is getting close to his alleged 117 birthday I will tell you my findings. He has a record of voting from 1936 on in California this would prove he was at least 100+ years old as he would have to have been at least 21 years of age to vote in 1936. He has a census in 1940 where he is listed as a border where he is 35 when census was taken apparent age would be 111 on October 7, 2015. I have seen a document from Social Security that says he was born on October 7, 1898 apparent age 117. What we can say for sure is he is no doubt 100 years old or better. Very likely age 111-117 using 1940 (census) on low end and 117 (Social security) on the high end. Exact early life proof is still a mystery as nothing before 1936 can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.63.131 (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

As original research counts for nothing on Wikipedia, any further discussion without reliable sources is pointless. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Happy birthday to Andrew Frank Hatch age 117 if you go by Social Security or 111 if you go by the 1940 census . Either one still a major achievement for a man.

Dina Guerri Manfredini & Emma Morano Martinuzzi

It has been said previously that Martinuzzi is the surname of the Emma Morano husband (so: no hyphen). The same for Dina Guerri Manfredini. We can't use only the husband surname. The correct should be Dina Guerri only but if you prefer to use both, you should put Dina Guerri Manfredini. Paolotacchi (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct, but the use of husband's surname is not necessary. To avoid any possible confusion is better to specify " in " between the two surnames, so "Dina Guerri in Manfredini" can't be misunderstood. 01:40, October 8, 2015 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.39.156.253 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Archives

Why does the Archive Box at the top right stop at March 2011 (Archive Number 14)? What if I want to see some archived discussions after that date? Where do I go? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how that Archive Box works so I've added a standard box as well. The archives are currently up to Archive 15. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)