Talk:Oldest people

Martha Graham dispute

Greetings,

Although Martha Graham wouldn't be verified by today's standards, her case was included in Guinness in the 1980's. Note the James Henry Brett Jr case is more likely to be false than the Martha Graham case is. That's why with Graham we use 'c' (i.e., about) and with the Brett case a ? (indicating age called into question).64.175.33.52 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as a footnote. I have the Guinness 1973, 1975, and 1981 edition. Under the oldest authenticated people by country, for the United States, Guinness listed a 113 year-old woman, from 1928 (1981 edition). Then, as a footnote, which listed other disputed cases, did they list Martha Graham. If you wanted to list Martha Graham, you might as well list all the other footnotes, no? I can take a picture of the Guinness pages. I don't have the 1959 or 1960 edition, so I don't know if she was crowned valid at the time. But nevertheless, she is not in the official tables but only as a footnote in later editions. You won't see her mentioned in today's Guinness editions, because that title goes to the undisputed 119 year-old Sarah Knauss of 1999, so, if there were any footnotes (per country), it would list dispusted U.S. cases of people older than the 119 year-old Sarah Knauss. Martha Graham was only listed when the oldest authenticated U.S. birth was younger than her, such as in the case of the verified 113 year-old Delina Filkins of 1928. Then, Guinness claims their only source of evidence of her was just the 1900 census. I suppose that's only significant just because Guinness mentions her? Neal 16:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Neal, try the 1987 or 1988 editions, they did list Martha Graham in the main section. They also moved Thomas Peters up from the footnotes. Whether this was a good idea or not, it did occur.R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So, she is validated, correct? Extremely sexy 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then, looks like Guinness received additional evidence in 1987! Maybe you can share with us what that is. Neal 16:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I already told you, I wrote Guinness a letter suggesting that, even if 'only' 114 1/2 as the footnote said (instead of 117 or 118 as claimed) that she would still be older than the authenticated recordholder. This was 1986. I was 12. Needless to say, the very next edition, Guinness did exactly as I suggested. I didn't know at the time, however, that the 'only' 114 came from the 1900 census. The 'only' 114 claim came from A. Ross Eckler, Jr (born 1927) who I have since corresponded with, so now I know the source of the case. The bottom line: Guinness accepted the case as valid in 1987, but it wouldn't pass today's standards.R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow. Telling Guinness that 114.5 is greater than 113 must be a good reason for Guinness to add! Anyways, you regret to ever contacting Guinness about that when you were 12, so I presume you still find the case significant to be on Wikipedia's tables?

Just because Guinness for that reason decides to add Martha Graham to their tables in the 1987 edition, does that make her case any more valid? So Guinness, for that reason, decides to add Martha Graham to their table in their 1987 edition. How does that make her case any more substantial? A lot of you people probably think Guinness is the 'God' of answers. Regardless of whether Martha Graham is in the Guinness book or not, Guinness did say their source is her 1900 census of a claimed 1844 birth. Well, if you have a 60s year-old woman her first birth certificate, no serious demographic scholar would consider that as a substantial proof of evidence. So, the 1900s census saying this person is 63 years old would be...well, the same. How would this make any difference if Guinness accepts here? Some of you may remember Guinness awarding Amy Hulmes the title, the oldest person in the world, even though Guinness knew about Maud-Farris Luse. They gave it to Amy Hulmes anyways since she claimed to have a life of drinking Guinness, despite giving it to Maud-Farris Luse later. Why would Guinness do such a thing like that, I asked. I suppose adding a name to the table, "This is Guinness's official tables," would be something to resolve this issue as it would cause less confusion, so people can decide for themselves if Guinness is right or not. Robert Young did remind me that Guinness is an entertainment purpose, so to follow Guinness as a Bible of answers would be..

Some of you people probably thought Martha Graham should be mentioned because she is in the 2005 edition of the table of the oldest persons in the world, since 1955. However, Guinness did not make that table, Robert Young did. The tables didn't mention Elizabeth Kensley or Hannah Smith. Elizabeth Kensley was in the 1965 edition and Hannah Smith was in the 1967 edition. But Robert Young didn't have or see the 1965 or 1967 edition, so, he didn't know about them, thus, they weren't in the table he submitted to Guinness. This is Guinness giving Robert the full faith. Why didn't Guinness make their own table? Well, for 1 thing, that would be too intelligent. It doesn't seem as if Guinness kept their own records (since they have a lot of other stuff to store). It doesn't seem Guinness can reproduce their old verions anyways. Guinness 2006 didn't have an oldest validated person entry, because the person in charge of that resigned/retired, so Robert Young was hired to replace him. Therefore, he says, how was he supposed to know about a 1967 case if he didn't have the edition and wasn't around at the time? Well, obviously, the tables would then have listed the '2nd oldest person in the world,' so, hopefully, those aren't in our tables either. If the person before Robert has been with Guinness at the start in 1955, then I suppose he would be the person to ask. Neal 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neal, to be more correct, the table for the 2005 edition did appear in the 2005 edition...regardless of who made it. Also, Mr. Epstein 'contributed.' To avoid controversy, I agreed to include the Martha Graham case as well as Marie Bernatkova. The problems I have with these cases are mainly that there is a missing date of birth or a missing date of death. However, Mr. Epstein continues to list them. I don't list them on my WOP tables but here, we want CONSENSUS on the Guinness tables. Therefore I support keeping Martha Graham as currently listed. If you choose to make your own listing on your own private page, so be it.

Second, 1900-1844=56, not 60-something. Also, the evidence does suggest this woman was over 110, based on the ages of the children. Right now I'm not sure where the original research went but I know that Mr. Eckler (born 1927) has it, so I can check. Note we keep Mr. Izumi not because we believe it, but because that is the standard, right or wrong. It's sort of like a call in a basketball game, or a baseball batting title. The standard, while not perfect, is better than no standard at all. If we drop the Guinness standard, there will be nothing to prevent a deluge of false cases from sweeping in, like the '116-year-old' Mexican man. Note also that the Martha Graham case is a 'grandfathered' case. That means it got in, but the standards of today wouldn't allow it in...sort of like a Hall of Famer elected in an old format. You don't take them out of the hall when a new format begins.R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: to Bart Versieck:

Bart Versieck wrote: "then you ought to delete all other disputed cases listed as well, but you didn't, okay"

Actually Bart, using the division fallacy isn't a good reason to justify any one individual case. Now, I'm presuming you implied that I didn't undo all the less-validated cases, so, if I did, that would have been kept, but I only did 1, so that has to be reverted. And it is from this idea, that you assume that the less-validated cases are "equally less-substantial." And I would like to point to you that that isn't the case.

From your logic, if I removed Martha Graham, I would also have to remove Carrie C. White and Shigechiyo Izumi, etc., and that would be the case if they were equally disputed, but it isn't. Shigechiyo Izumi was disputed because someone in Japan found another Shigechiyo Izumi born 15 years later, that had a birth certificate. That doesn't make the older Shigechiyo Izumi's birth certificate any less valid, just causes more confusion. Say there were 3 John Smith's born in the same city in the U.S. in the 1990s (different date of birth). Individually, assuming you didn't know their SSN, their date of birth are all equally non-disputed. It is only when you want to differentiate 1 John Smith from another, would you have a probability problem of differentiating which John Smith from which. Again, that doesn't cause a dispute on the individual level. Shigechiyo Izumi's birth certificate can be considered partially disputed for the fact that he was born before 1868, and since there's another person with the same name born 15 years later, that adds to the probability factor of determining 1 Shigechiyo Izumi from the other. Guinness wants reliability on individual birth records. If someone reported to Guinness that S. Izumi's birth certificate was false, that would be news to them. But Guinness was only reported that someone else has a birth certificate with the same name but different year, and potentially a relative, which is a somewhat different case. Now, I was told earlier by IP address that the Martha Graham case is more believable than the James Henry Brett, Jr. case. That I didn't research - I just know Martha Graham was listed once in the 1900 census at age ~56. As for Carrie C. White, her first census was the 1900 census, which stated 1889 (and being born in November, she probably wasn't born in time to make it to the 1890 census 2 months later?). The rest goes to case with how substantial her medical records are stating 1874 birth that got her in the Guinness book, and that I don't know. Anyways Robert, I did not know about her children, perhaps you can share her descendants lineage in WOP groups sometime. Neal 16:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well: there really are even more reasons not to list both of them, plus Anicita Butariu and Kamato Hongo than for Graham. Extremely sexy 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well I hope you can list those reasons! As for Anitica Butariu and Kamato Hongo, the nursing home that Anitica lived in has evidence that she moved in at the year (age 82), so they have records that she lived there for 33 years. So, if she wasn't 115, and marginally younger, then, yeah... And if you read Robert Young's WOP post some years ago, you'd know there is strong evidence that Kamato Hongo is over 110. Neal 14:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Neal, I think Bart is right. It's like a call by a referee, it usually stands historically unless there's overwhelming evidence to overturn it. In reality, the James Henry Brett Jr case is the worst...he almost certainly was 96. With the Izumi and White cases, the age hinges on identity. The Izumi case is weaker than you want to believe. Notably, Guinness claims that the original evidence that led to acceptance is now 'lost'. So, we don't know what led them to accept the case in 1978. The Graham case is more like Anitica Butariu...evidence favors the age claimed, but we don't have early-life documentation. With Kamato Hongo, most experts agree she was over 110, but probably younger than 116 (one theory is that her age was changed to cover up a teenage pregancy...her first child was born in 1909, but she didn't marry until 1914). In all cases, where scientific opinion deviates from the Guinness list, we use italics to show that the case is disputed.R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Except it doesn't matter as much whether Guinness keeps their records. For example, if Guinness never obtained or seen Shigechiyo Izumi's birth certificate, then we can assume we don't know how he got accepted. If they did have Shigechiyo Izumi's birth certificate, but they threw it away 100 years later, how would his case be any less substantial 100 years later? Etc. That gets thrown in with the Japanese-government claim of their first census in 1871 3 years after their revolution. As for James Henry Brett, Jr., I'd like to know how many censuses say what birth year he was born, and how many didn't (for my own curiosity). Neal 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(Continued). Okay, I looked at the James Henry Brett, Jr. article. Woop dee doo. A 1930 census comes into question despite being born in 1849. That's when he was 81 years old. I imagine the earlier censuses are more relevant, unless you assume the later ones are more accurate. So that's '1' census that marks him as dispute, and do you weigh that in with all the early ones? And this is compared to only 1 census for both Martha Graham and Carrie C. white, where the 1900 census claims their birth record? If the 1910, 1920, and 1930 census are more relevant, what do they say for Martha Graham? Or Carrie C. White? Neal 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding Unvalidated Cases

Please refrain from adding unvalidated cases to the lists. Unvalidated cases can be added to the longevity claims page. That's what it's there for.R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Official"

The use of "official" is SUPPOSED to be subjective. Some authority chose these cases but not others. Like a referee...right most of the time, but not all of the time. Do the lists represent my best guess as to who is really the oldest person? NO. They represent who was CHOSEN to be the world's oldest person, oldest man, etc.R Young {^yakł_talk} 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

>>The use of "official" is SUPPOSED to be subjective.

The word 'official' isn't a subjective term and leads readers to believe that the list isn't subjective at all.

>>Like a referee...right most of the time, but not all of the time.

Ofcourse, but that goes without saying.

>>Do the lists represent my best guess as to who is really the oldest person?

Yes, it is the best and most authoritive guess that we currently have. Nothing is for certain, especially hard to verify claims such as these.

>>They represent who was CHOSEN to be the world's oldest person, oldest man, etc.

Exactly. But that doesn't make it official to everyone.

I personally think the use of the word 'official' on these sections is biased since the word asserts that it has authority over other lists. Although if it said "Guinness' Official", or just "List of" I wouldn't object. --Android Mouse 00:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, are you aware that when you reverted my edits you also reverted the edits of a few other editors after me? --Android Mouse 00:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that if you had left the list alone as-is, that wouldn't have happened? If you want to make a major, controversial change you should discuss it first on the talk page.R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the few slight rewording of the section names as being major or even controversial change. Even if it was a major, controversial change, that is perfectly fine. I'd advise you to take a look at WP:BRD. --Android Mouse 05:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

>Some authority chose these cases but not others.

So there's an example of ambiguity.

>Like a referee...right most of the time, but not all of the time.

Then it isn't "official."

You are missing the point. If there is a hypothetical absolute truth, then a very good referee will have a close approximation to that absolute truth but never be 100% perfect. Hence, I like the word 'official.' "List of" is too weak: anyone can make a list any way they want to.R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

>Do the lists represent my best guess as to who is really the oldest person? NO. They represent who was CHOSEN to be the world's oldest person, oldest man, etc.

And someone has to decide that. (Someone/body of official status?). Anyways, I think we better find a better word. Or simply clarify more, particularly starting with the words "List of validated..." Neal 04:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has existed just fine for over a year without this silly dispute. It should stay as-is.R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not really how wikipedia was designed to work. --Android Mouse 05:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's called 'concensus.' Also, last I checked, referees were also called 'officials.' But that doesn't mean their call is always right. It merely means they are the experts that decide. I'm sorry if you couldn't figure that out.R Young {^yakł_talk} 13:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Again

What could be more fun for teenage boys than to change a few 'oldest' numbers 'sneakily' or, worse, add their own name in? Aside from the fact that they are sadly mistaken about not getting caught...this is one of the most heavily-monitored article groups...wouldn't it be easier on everyone to make the ban on anonymous edits semi-permanent? Should we really be wasting our time as 'babysitters' for these pages?R Young {^yakł_talk} 13:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert, this is actually a pointless message. If you look around, vandalism happens everywhere on Wikipedia. Being all over on Wikipedia, I virtually see vandalism on every article I been to. Is there a point to announcing vandalism in the talk page of every article that has vandalism? I vote this message to deletetion. Neal 14:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the page be semi-protected? If not there's probably a better place to discuss vandalism in general. --Android Mouse 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You should just have instantly requested protection at WP:RPP, R Young. If people are screwing around with sneaky vandalism that might not be noticed, then the sysop'll be very likely to grant semi-protection.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

New Page:Unconfirmed oldest people

I'm considering writing a page Unconfirmed oldest people. Basically, everyone currently on the Oldest people list has lived in the era of modern record-keeping. However, we only have suppositions and indirect claims for people born before modern records were as ubiquitous as they are today. The page would include historical and mythological figures, as the distinction is fuzzy at best. Thoughts? samwaltz 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

We already have longevity claims and longevity myths. Longevity claims are those that are within the realm of scientific possibility (115-130) and longevity myths are those outside the realm of scientific possiblity (130+). Add away on those pages, if you wish...NOT HERE!!!R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Claims" are claims that are not proven. "Myths" are claims that have been proven to be wrong. Since a lot of stuff hasn't been proven that are on the "myths" page, I think they should be moved over to the claims page. I think there should be an article for claims that have been proven wrong (Longevity Myths), an article for longitivity claims that have not been proven (Longevity claims) and an article for claims that have yet to be proven and are in the time period in which records are available (like the suggested Unconfirmed oldest people article.) For example, the Biblical account of people living over 900 years old has been claimed but not proven. If it is not proven, it is not a myth, but a claim. If someone was born in 1885, for example, and claims to be living in 2007, and hasn't been recogonized by Guiness or have any records available, this person would be placed on the Unconfirmed oldest people article. Once anything is actually proven to be wrong, they can be placed on the Longevity myths article. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 18:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

AMR, Your idea as presently presented is very, very bad and appears to be a back-door attempt to sneak religion into a scientific discussion. What we currently have are:

A. Oldest People...claims to age 110+ (or oldest living if earlier eras) that have been scientifically validated.

B. Longevity claims...unvalidated claims (unconfirmed) within the realm of scientific possibility, but more likely to be false than true

C. Longevity myths...claims that are scientifically impossible to be true, and are advanced for religious (mythical) reasons.

The Methuselah claim is a lonevity myth. To try to say that the Methuselah story is "not a myth, but a claim" is akin to saying "evolution is only a theory, not a fact." The FACT of the matter is, even the Bible says "not to give heed to confusing myths and genealogies" and it should be noted that the extreme ages claimed for the early Biblical patriarchs were meant to be taken allegorically, not literally. For example, Methuselah means "when he dies, it will come" (the flood). God's letting Methuselah live to the oldest age ever showed that God had given man every chance to repent of his sin before judgment came. It also shows that since a day of the Lord is as a thousand years, and "in that day you will surely die," therefore Methuselah had to die at less than 1,000 years for the Biblical propechies to be fulfilled. None of this has anything to do with the proven human life span. It's like saying "the oldest elf from Lord of the Rings is 3,000 years old." The realms of science fiction and religion are totally outside the realm of modern-day scientific inquiry.R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Note also that one need not debunk a 'claim' to age 150. Since it is scientifically impossible, it is untrue by definition. No need to check. Only claims within 115-130 years (the twilight of possiblity) really need to be checked.R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

But, has the the ages of of these Biblical people been proven false? No. "It can't be proven, so it's false" is not true. Calling it a myth affends people. If someone in a fictional story lives a very long time, that's fiction, not non-fiction. If the Bible is fiction, I want to see proof. The Biblical people's longevity are not myths, but unproven claims. Perhaps we could have two pages:

• Longevity myths - Longitivity myths that have been actually proven to be false.
• Unconfirmed oldest people - Broken down into modern claims, and claims from long ago that are unconfirmed, hence the name of the article.

Unless new research has proven the Biblical ages to be false, they don't belong in Longevity myths. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

USER AMK152, you once again confirmed that your problem here is that you are trying to mix 'religion' with science. This is Wikipedia, not the Bible. It is written for everyone, not just Christians. Also, you misunderstand a lot of concepts.

First: a myth need not be proven false to be a myth. Do we need to prove that Zeus doesn't exist to call ancient Greek stories of gods myths? Of course not. In fact, the whole point of religion is that you cannot prove it false, because it is not based on science but on 'faith' or 'belief.' In other words, you can always believe what you will no matter what I say. However, that is your belief; it is not general, common knowledge. Second, some people have misinterpreted the use of the word 'myth'. Go back to myth. The use here is more a mixture of the first and second than simply the second. The story of Methuselah is a story intended to explain things, such as God was merciful and waited a long time before sending the Flood.

Third, there are stories in Hindu mythology that claim ages such as 24,000 years. To pick out just Judeo-Western cultural stories is discrimination.

Fourth, the whole purpose of this article has to do with modern times.

Fifth, we can infer than any claim to age 150 or greater ever made has been false, as it has never been demonstrated that a human being can survive more than 122 years...if you knew the odds of surviving to 969 (age 120 is 10 billion to 1. Now times 10 billion by 849 to get your odds) then you wouldn't even be raising this issue.Ryoung122 10:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not just Scientists who read Wikipedia. Just because someone lived to 122 doesn't mean that is the limit. The thing that bothers me is calling Biblical people's ages 'myths'. The Bible mentions 30 people who lived past 122. At least 9 of those people were under age 150. I looked at A myth, in popular use, is something that is widely believed but false on the myth article, says that a myth is something that is false. I read those definitions and it basically says that a myth is something that is false, but a myth is a legendary story, but a myth is soemthing that is false, but myth = false. So, if these longevitys are called "myths" and myths are said to be "false," but some people say that these longevitys are true, others disagree. Also, if "myths" are referred to "religious stories" how can this be neutral? I know that these ages are for modern times. Simply because "Scientists" don't have enough "proof" of longevitys of long ago. They are not myths. Probability is not a factor here. So, stuff that hasn't been proven are not myths/false. Stuff that have been proven wrong are myths. In order to nuetralize the situation Longevity myths has to be renamed. But to what? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words: "Moses lived to 120" is a longevity claim because it is possible to be true, if unproven. "Methuselah lived to 969" is a longevity myth because there is no doubt, scientifically, that such an age is false from a literal standpoint, but still may be seen as an allegorical or representative age.Ryoung122 15:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So essentially you're saying that the word "myth" has to be blotted out of existence, just to satisfy your admittedly unscientific, religious viewpoint? I think not.Ryoung122 15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A "myth" is something that is "false." These biblical longevitys are not false; they are unproven, except for the Bible. In other words, these longevitys are not myths; perhaps an article can be dedicated to religious longevity. Did you know that the word "claim," "claims," "claimed", etc. are mentioned 57 times in the Longevity myths article, excluding the top sentence, template, and "disclaimer" link at the bottom of the page? And did you know that "myth" is mentioned only 10 times throughout the entire article? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 01:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Longevitys" isn't even a word in English. Should you be presenting yourself as an expert when you can't even spell or use the word "longevity" correctly?

Also, scientifically most religious beliefs are false...it is only due to societal pressure that rational-minded people are forced to accept such irrational concepts as flying bunnies, idol sacrifices, etc. Because many choose to maintain the fiction of religion (i.e. religion is the 'drug' of the masses because the intellectual answer, that we will die, is simply not what most people want to hear) or even tradition, you'll see things like Santa Claus on the evening news. That doesn't mean Santa exists. One reason religion should not be mixed up with this is the issue of corruption, longevity has no meaning and is irrelevant if defined by what we want to believe. After all, Jesus promised eternal life, so by that definition, the 'world's oldest person' (aside from Jesus, who is also God the Father) would be the first person who believed in Jesus (and is thus still alive today).Ryoung122 04:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Just because someone lived to 122 doesn't mean that is the limit."

Um, no one said anything about 122 (122.45) being the limit. Neal 14:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that the Methuselah myth is false according to scientific standards. OK? From a secular viewpoint, the story is only important from a mythical perspective, which it is...a story made up to explain something then not understood.

Today, with modern scientific methods, we can say with certainty that even though age 122.45 may not be an unbreakable record, it is a stretch to even consider '150' a remote possibility.

As for your comment about the word counts in the longevity myths article...the article is still organized mainly according to the ideation of the longevity myth, whereas the longevity claims article is organized mainly according to the examples of longevity claims (with a short ideation section).

For example, if Cruz Hernandez claimed to be 128, that's a longevity claim because it's unproven, but also her age does not carry with it religious connotation or is used to support that (although it was used for nationalist mythmaking). The story of Methuselah is not only unproven on modern scientific standards, but it is used as a longevity myth.Ryoung122 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that "scientifically most religious beliefs are false," that's your belief, but there's no fact. Prove to me that all this is false. I said 122, as I was referring to the age in years, not the precise age in years and days. Not many people go around saying they're 35.6, 88.3 or even 29.384. What is in the Bible is true, but yet there are people who disagree with this statement. If the Bible is false, there would be proof, right? And we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, if there is no proof, how do you know this is false? And yes, Methuselah's age is not proven. But if something is not proven, it does not mean it's false. Therefor, it is not a myth. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 01:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not my belief, that is a FACT. Fact. Fact. Also, the burden of proof is upon the claimant, not the other way around...prove to me that Methuselah lived to 969...prove that the Bible is true...

The FACT of the matter is, the Bible coined a word..."faith"...to describe what it takes to believe something without evidence. That's all you need to know. The Bible is in the realm of 'belief,' not 'fact'. It says so itself.

Methuselah's age is a myth because it fits the definition: a story meant to explain things that was constructed in religious terms, but for which no modern evidence is available to prove it and which seems impossible based upon the presently-known laws of science.Ryoung122 10:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:AMK512. You said that Bible is true. Let's just start on a basis of how to view statements. Everything by default is unknown until proven true - not, the other way around. So you can have 2 mentalities:

1.The Bible is true, until proven false.

Or.

2.The Bible is false, until proven true.

Since you said you believe the Bible is true, that means we have to "prove" to you the Bible is false. And in many cases, it's irrelevant to you, because you'll just ignore present data. If the Bible said the world was created in 7 days, so that the story of Adam and Eve was some 6,000 years ago, then you'll "ignore" scientific fata that says the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, won't you? Neal 16:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get into a major Evolutionism vs. Creationism arguement. I can see where this is going. This arguement has gone on for many, many years and there hasn't been any agreement. The Bible says that the Bible is true. It is a matter of faith and once a person has faith, they will understand the complex nature of the spiritual aspect and they'll know that the Bible is true. Those who have faith will only understand why the Bible is true. Ryoung, you said:

"Longevity claims are those that are within the realm of scientific possibility (115-130) and longevity myths are those outside the realm of scientific possiblity (130+)."

So basically what your saying is, Moloko Temo should be moved from the claims to the myths article. And, if still alive, Habib Miyan will be moved there on May 22, 2008. Maria Olivia da Silva, if still living will also be moved to the myths article on February 28, 2010.

So your saying, as soon as someone hits their 130th birthday, they no longer claim an age, but it is automatically false. No. They are all claims. Your just separating different levels of claimed longevities by calling some might be true and calling the others false. These articles should be merged together, as they are all "claimed" ages. Or, the Longevity myths article should be renamed to something like "Extreme longevities" or "List of people with extreme longevities" or "Longevity claims (130+)" and renamed the current claims article "Longevity claims (115-130)." Also, if someone has a claimed age of 110-114, why arn't these claimed supercentenarians listed on their list? Also, there are three people under the age of 115 listed on the Longevity claims article. Where would Ruby Muhammad be listed, since her age is claimed and she is a claimed supercentenarian. I'm not saying let's make a list of people who claim the age of 109. Only those who claim an age of 110 or more should be on a claims list. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 14:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User AMR, please bring up ONE point per discussion. However, since you insist, I'll have to answer all the disparate 'points' you bring up.

1. Creationsim vs. Evolution:

Let's not get into a major Evolutionism vs. Creationism arguement. I can see where this is going. This arguement has gone on for many, many years and there hasn't been any agreement. The Bible says that the Bible is true. It is a matter of faith and once a person has faith, they will understand the complex nature of the spiritual aspect and they'll know that the Bible is true. Those who have faith will only understand why the Bible is true.

Clearly, what you are trying to do is to sneak religion in the back door. Take your 'faith' and go to church with it. Wikipedia is NOT A THEOCRACY. Comments such as "those who have faith will only understand" does what most religion does: it puts some people above others and sets up false boundaries of 'morality' (often ignored by those claiming to be 'religious/spiritual'). The FACT of the matter is: your complete objection to the current setup, and reason for this proposal, is to PROMOTE a LITERAL INTERPRETATION of extreme ages in the Bible. However, we see that there can be no common ground between science (which demands proof) and religion (which demands faith...belief without proof). Thus the best way to 'solve' the problem is 'separation'...as in 'separation of church and state.' You are free to believe whatever you wish privately...just don't be pushing it on others here at Wikipedia.

2. Originally, the entire article was 'longevity myths'. I created the 'longevity claims' to address the issue that there is at least SOME small degree of 'scientific possibility' that some of these claims might be true...or close to it (i.e. 120 instead of 125). In reality, the possibility of a case being true probably ends at between 122-125. We just don't know for sure. However, consider the odds:

chance of living to 120: 1 in 10 billion chance of living to 125: 1 in a trillion

So, in reality the cutoff should probably be '123'. However, I do admit the numbers were based on data from a long time ago, so we can relax the odds a bit. SO, to give people a little 'margin of error' I graciously expanded the general cut-off point to age '130'. Note this helps the Bible: Moses 'could have been' 120 and Aaron 'could have been' 123 (based on scientific possibility, although the ages quoted were allegorical and probably not reflective of the real life of a person here on Earth...a generation was '40' years and since Moses's life was in 'three parts', then 40 X 3=120. So Mose's quoted age had numerologist significance and shouldn't be viewed literally, unless of course you also believe that rods bud or staffs turn into snakes).

3. Why isn't Ruby Muhammad listed? That one is easy. Because, if we drop the standards to allow no proof (other than a newspaper claim), then the number of cases increases considerably. As such, claims to age 110-113 really aren't significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article (look at how many we have 114+ right now).

Further, most unvalidated claims are most important in the context of claming to be older than the world's oldest 'validated' person. Since Edna Parker is born Apr 20 1893, it seems that anyone older than that is a nice bet for inclusion.

However, in the time of someone like Jeanne Calment, she began to outlive some of the claimants (such as Emma Winn, '118' in March 1994). Thus, it makes sense to make the cutoff point not 'superior but unauthenticated' claims (as Guinness once did, and which simply meant 'claims older than the official oldest person') but age 114 itself. Or maybe 113, but we really don't need to bother with younger than that.

4. Where should the cutoff between longevity claims/longevity myths be? Yes, perhaps Moloko Temo should already be promoted to 'mythical' status...her age is in the fanciful range, and the evidence suggests she's about 103, not 133 (based on the ages of her children). However, I define the 'oldest living claimant' as the 'oldest living person with a cited date of birth whose age has been recently quoted in the news (i.e. the past two years) and for whom a claim of 'world's oldest person' has been made'. Moloko Temo barely fits that definition. When someone e-mails me that they know of a 160-year-old witchdoctor woman in Kenya, that does not.

Also, I see no problem with a bit of an overlap. Check out the article on Venn diagrams. You can have 'some' overlap and still have two different sets of data. Exceptions only prove that there is a general rule; otherwise you wouldn't have to cite it. Note that a 'centenarian' is also a human. A 'longevity claimant' can also be a 'longevity myth.' But there are cases out there that clearly fit into only one category. Methuselah is clearly a myth. Maria Strelnikova is a claim.Ryoung122 10:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Let's not forget that the Bible 'confirms' Methuselah's age. I don't know why people think the word 'myth' is such a pejorative. Last I checked, it was O.K. to call Zeus a 'Greek myth'...was it not? But suddenly a character from the Hebrew Bible is a 'myth' and religous zealots come running. Whatever happened to equal treatment?Ryoung122 10:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to #1:

• The article should be neutral. The article should not be bias toward religion. Believe it or not, there are Christians as well as people of other religions who read Wikipedia.

In response to #2:

• So basically what you did is split the article into 2 parts, called one "possible" (Longevity claims) and called the other "false?" (Longevity myths) Also note that Joshua lived to 110.

In response to #3:

• Makes sense.

In response to #4:

• A myth is something that is false, like I mentioned before.

-AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 01:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, a myth is not simply something that is false. If a murderer kills someone and says "I didn't do it" that's a lie, not a myth. The simplest definition of a 'myth' is "something widely believed to be true, usually on the basis of religion or folklore, for which scientific evidence strongly suggests is false."

Please note that the Bible itself tells us to 'hot give heed to unending MYTHS and genealogies."

Why? Because we forget the original purpose of the myth: to explain to humans what they can understand at the time. When a parent explains to a child that 'babies come from a stork', the parent knows the story is not true, but tells it because the child is too young to be hearing about 'penis and vagina.' The early Bible ages given are both numerological and allegorical. They are meant to fill in generation gaps in order to stretch the beginning of creation back to 4000 BC or so. In many cases, it is believed that the ages given actually refer to not a single person but a 'family' or 'house' (i.e. "House of Tudor"). The people at the time were nomadic and DID NOT KEEP RECORDS OF BIRTH AND DEATH. Stories were told/recollected ORALLY. Notably, when the Hebrews/Israelites settled down and began accurate recordkeeping in the time of King David, the ages claimed for the kings...generally 40 to 70 years old...accord well with the ages of Roman emperors or the Kings of England in the Middle Ages. Hence, I am not saying that the entire Bible is a 'myth'...we are saying that the early patriarchal stories are myths...and even the Bible says so.

1 Timothy 6:20, "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith....;"

In any case, however, this entire article is NOT about the Bible; it is about the modern-age documentation of the maximum human life span, as observed through individual and national recordkeeping. Your arguments are akin to demanding the inclusion of the 'president' from the TV show 'West Wing' on a list of U.S. presidents. It comes from an entirely different 'universe'. One is fact-based; the other is imaginary/fictional.Ryoung122 10:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary refers a myth as something fictional or imaginary. The article is bias toward religion. How do you know they are to fill generation gaps? The entire Bible is true, there isn't one part that is false. Not even the ages of the people of the times before the Exodus. It's all true. Christians say it's true, other people disagree. So what do we do? Make it neutral. If you think I am trying to add people to the List of the oldest people, such as Methuselah, I am not. That list is for validated cases, and since there are people who don't believe the Bible is a historical document while others believe it is true, then they shouldn't be listed until the dispute is resolved. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is you want the articles to be biased in favor of fundamentalist Christianity, instead of taking a neutral view. Not all Christians believe the Bible should be interpreted literally for every passage. Otherwise, we would have a big problem today:

The books of Leviticus and Exodus - They are great examples of our moral code? Jul 19th, 2007 by chezzag

I have been sent an email which is humorous but on the flip side it also demonstrates something a bit more serious. It demonstrates how verses from the Bible can be used against people and justifies virtually any stance they may wish to take.

Just so you know I have looked up all of these verses in the Holy Bible and yes they are true. So in reality the following are fair enough questions when you think about it. I can see why Sam Harris loves to quote Leviticus.

On a serious note, these types of quotes really put me off certain religions, because I wouldn’t want to be associated with or try to defend words such as these. Remember they are in the holy book that many people strongly defend and the only reason we are not carrying out these barbaric acts today in most Western countries, is not because religion has evolved, it is because our morals and sense of humanity have evolved and religion has had to keep up with our changing morals.

It also highlights the point which I made in my post “Religion, God and Peace: My Humble Opinion” when I made the following statement,

“Another point is that if there are parts of the holy book which are way out of date or put your religion in a bad light in these more modern times, then why keep those passages? As a religion you are only giving ammunition to non-believers to discount your religion due to some of the ridiculous antics of a more ancient civilisation, which you obviously must accept as gospel and therefore should be adhered to or otherwise you wouldn’t have them in your holy book. Of course your answer will be that they were the written works of your god and they can’t be altered, fair enough but I can tell you now it is your religion and also some of mankind that is suffering because of it. Terrible actions can be justified just by quoting a verse from a holy book.”

The email:

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality, and dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. On her radio show recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet.

Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual un-cleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is: my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

Homer Simpson-Caldwell

Ryoung122 14:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Romans 3:23 says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." In other words, it is impossible not to sin. Everyone sins. Some people try to obey God's laws, (Like those verses mentioned above) but are unable to, either because they don't want to, human laws, etc. However, it IS possible to sin and still get to heaven as said in the Bible. The whole point is that the article should not be biased toward religion. There are people who believe the ENTIRE Bible. I'm not saying let's make it a religious POV. Making the article a religious POV would put Methuselah and other religious figures on the List of the oldest people, which will not happen as stated earlier. (If you think I am trying to add people to the List of the oldest people, such as Methuselah, I am not. That list is for validated cases, and since there are people who don't believe the Bible is a historical document while others believe it is true, then they shouldn't be listed until the dispute is resolved.) The Longevity myths article is basically saying that Methuselah and other Biblical people's ages are false. That is NOT, I repeat, NOT a neutral viewpoint. The article must be a nuetral viewpoint. It should tell BOTH sides. Right now it's treating those age claims like they are not true. It should be equal. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a brief note- Just thought I'd say that not all of us Christians are as foolish as AMK here. As with much of the old testament (and indeed, the new testament) the super long ages of the patriarchs are exaggerated to prove a point. They belong in the myths section and nowhere else. From a scientific viewpoint, they're wrong, simple as that. - Caspian.

List of centenarians

On this article, there is a person who is said to have lived from 1788 - 1901. Could someone confirm this? Or is this a mistake? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 18:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Do me a favor. Read this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oldest_people#Spanish_Supercentenarian_in_the_late_19th_century.3F Neal 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

2 of top 12 men die in a week

Elias Wen died on the 8th but I only found out when he was removed today. I have added Aarne Arvonen. Frank Scarrabelotti would have been tied for 10th but he died yesterday. In the grand scheme of things it isn't important but it would have been nice for him to be up for a few days. Shows how fast things can change. It does avoid arguments about whether alphabetical order or timezone (if they had those in the 1890s) should take precident. Henry Allingham beats George Francis on both counts in 3rd, and his case came to notice first aswell, but there was no such distiction between Arvonen and Scarrabelotti, and the other two criteria clash. It may be a long time before the same problem arises again, but something to discuss.

Another debate will be top 10 or 110+. It says top 10 which is why I thought Arvonen needed to be added. And if it was 110+ we could get a spate of 110 year old men and have to add all of them, which seems worse than adding one man who'll be 110 in two months. I know it seems unlikely that there is a 6 month gap after Aime Avignon - the same gap as between Tanabe and Nakanishi. Ruell Millar would have been there if he hadn't died. I remember before the Francis, Wen and Tseien cases were added, another was put into 10th place, born around May 97. If this was accurate and that man is still alive then please add him, or indeed anyone else - Arvonen can wait his turn. Otherwise, it looks like it has to be him. 87.194.248.174 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

What about Ronnie Fairbanks from the USA. He was born on May 29, 1897 and celebrated his 109th birthday last year. I did neither find something about his death, nor an information about his 110th birthday. If he is still alive today he would be older then Arvonen.

That's the one. Hopefully someone will be able to say if he is alive or not. 163.1.42.59 22:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

I already asked at "WOP", but no answer yet. Extremely sexy 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He was last confirmed alive in May 2006.Ryoung122 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Really (NOT) oldest

If you do a research on Chechnya, there were or are at least two woman who are 125 years, but do they have enough evidence to prove their age? It's possible and it needs to be deeply investigated asap! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.1.237 (talk • contribs)

No, no, no! These cases are false. End of message.Ryoung122 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why...you may go ahead and investigate them, and show us the evidence. Neal 05:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Autoupdating vs. Daily Updating

To the MORON who keeps attempting to replace the auto-updating formula with a date that needs to be updated daily: do you really want to update something 365 days a year when the computer does it for you?Ryoung122 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your name calling is getting worse as we speak: calling someone "AN IDIOT" or "A MORON" is not the way to do it: addressing people this way isn't being polite at all, but I guess we don't have to expect some decent behaviour from you at all, which has become more and more clear to me, having read and seen lots of messages from you at this website. Extremely sexy 03:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Extremely sexy, I fully agree on what you said! Robert's writing is becoming more and more aggressive and even insulting (as in the above case). His merits in gerontlogy research are doubtlessly considerable but this is NOT a legitimation to treat others in a most disrespectful way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.85.156.75 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for agreeing with me: I also told him this several times in a lot of emails, plus on my talk page yesterday. Extremely sexy 11:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. Neal 05:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade is honest. Let me ask...can anyone discuss something SUBSTANTIVE here? Please explain why replacing an auto-update with a manual one is an 'improvement'--or am I missing something here?Ryoung122 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Note I didn't go for the name-calling until the reverts were done several times without explanation. If name-calling is what it takes to get one's attention, then it is worth it. NOT explaining forked-editing is the worst thing you can possibly do. The key to solving a problem starts with identifying it. Notably, the person who wrote what they did is using an anonymous, unidentified IP address. Hence, how can I be biased against an IP address? I can, however, recognize stupidity when I see it.

Is it not true that Japanese martial-arts experts, and even Confucius himself, castigated students for poor learning, even calling them 'fools'...so name-calling, if it leads one to THINK for a moment, is a redeemable art. I have not ventured into the realm of the profane or unwarranted name-calling, but only toward those with a long pattern of abusive editing. Abusive editing includes things such as not compromising and not explaining one's position, especially when an edit is controversial.

Also, I use name-calling not for the mere purpose of calling one a name, but in an if-then supposition that should lead one to see the error of their ways. Perhaps, however, I could be a bit more oblique: instead of calling one a name, I should state a third-person hypothetical: "Only a fool would want to manually edit a date 365 days a year, when a computer-generated bot could automatically do all the work for free." Would removing the direct finally open one's eyes? Finally, I note that although Bart disagrees with my personality, he agrees with the autoupdating feature...which is why he didn't mention it. Ryoung122 20:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievably, people continue to try to replace the auto-updating feature with a manual update that must be changed 365 days/year. This is illogical, and it will not stand. So don't try it.Ryoung122 21:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Last Person Born in the 18th Century?

I think it'd be cool if on this page, as well as the List of notable last events, if someone could find who the last person was to be born in the 18th century. I see one pre-1950's centenarian that was born in the 18th and lived till the very early 20th, could she be the last? I'm trying to research it myself, but does anyone else know or have any suggestions? V8americanpower 15:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A man in France was born on December 31, 1899, 21:50. Neal 19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The 18th century (this is an example of something that is true despite being not-so-obvious) is the time from 1700-1799; the day you mentioned was the last day of the 19th century. Georgia guy 19:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

Oh, you meant 1700s. That was very well probably Sophia Wijnberg. Neal 19:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Georgia guy, I just answered his question in the above comment. But I guess you didn't know the 2 comments were made both by me. Or you were just ignorant and decided to correct a mistake I already realized. That's okay. Neal 23:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that your comment was made 2 minutes after my correction comment. Now I will assume there is the possibility you were looking at this page for more than 2 minutes before seeing my post and replying. Neal 23:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the 18th century was from 1701 to 1800...that's why it's the '18th' century. I do know a man born in 1800 died in 1909.Ryoung122 01:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont want to get that whole old "when does a century begin" debate going, so I'll take the elementary approach to it. Who was the last person born in a year that began with a 17? OK? I can find noone after Sophia Wijnberg, so I'm beginning to think she's the sole survivor of the 18th century. I think that makes her worthy of a page, eh? V8americanpower 01:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Parr

Should Old Parr be in this list or not? Arundhati lejeune 23:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, man: in the longevity myths article, since it's obviously untrue. Extremely sexy 18:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Should someone be in the list depends on whether their case is substantial or validated, or accepted by Guinness. Why don't you ask yourself that about whether this grandfathered case should be mentioned? There's a list of men claiming age from 130-185, why is Thomas Parr any significant than the others? Neal 15:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Neal, 'grandfathered case' is a term that means 'accepted by rules that no longer apply.' It came from the U.S. South, where citizens could vote if their 'grandfather' voted (a Jim Crow law meant to prevent blacks from voting). Its use in the political realm has gone into the mainstream. This should apply to Shigechiyo Izumi (still listed by the Japanese government as the recordholder) but not Thomas Parr (because the British government does not accept the case as valid. A case is only 'grandfathered' if it hasn't been removed from present data and the record and was accepted based on rules that have since been changed.Ryoung122 03:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish and South African supercentenarians - why so few?

Why do you think the national longevity records of Katherine Plunket (Ireland) and Johanna Booyson (South Africa) have lasted so long? The Great Irish Famine of the 19th Century may have decimated the population to an extent a generation or two before today's supercentenarians were born but even so. And how about South Africa? It's a country that has seen a lot of change over the last century, but why the difference in this aspect from other similar countries? Both are countries not too dissimilar in many ways to the UK, France, Italy and Australia; which are well represented with supercentenarians, so why not Ireland and South Africa? What do you think? Rrsmac 01:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it is not good to combine two countries; each should be discussed separately. As it is, Ireland is a nation with basically complete and validated data, yet no one in Ireland has broken Plunkett's record since 1932. Note this is partly a statistical anomaly. Consider that Mary Crombie, 113, of the USA was of Irish ancestry. None of the unvalidated Irish cases of recent years would have broken Plunkett's record. The real reason the record is still there...Ireland has just about 4 million people (less than the metro area of Miami FL).

With South Africa, however, we have a different story. A more populous nation but for whom the majority of the population is 'unvalidated'. And, while it may be that records exist for the 'white' population, there is also a lack of correspondents, and the problems of dealing with a shift from apartheid to post-apartheid and AIDS meant that, unlike in Europe, issues of age are not of primary importance. In 1999 it was reported that Nicklaas Amsterdam reached age 112, but nothing more came of that.Ryoung122 10:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't even know how or why Johanna Booyston got in the Guinness. Guinness listed some disputed cases from South Africa, so it beats me why or how Johanna's case isn't. That should be looked into. A lot of Guinness's original cases have been debunked, I wonder if Johanna could be as well. As per Katherine Plunket - her case is definitely valid and substantial. I, too, have wondered why Ireland doesn't have any "3-star" supercentenarian cases. Robert's list lists some 2-star supercentenarians from Ireland. However, I think the problem is GRG doesn't have an Ireland-correspondent. So no one there studies Irish claims. Some time ago, I went around stripping out common coutries from the GRG list, until all the people of only 1 country were listed. This was apparently the case for Ireland and South Africa - only 1 known person, and neither 1 of them were studied or had anything to do with GRG. GRG started out in 1999 with a "original 1999 list," mosty, if not all, from Guinness. And Robert Young should be able to give you a more in-depth accurate answer. Neal 04:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's be straightforward: Ms Booyston was most likely a white, Dutch woman, an Afrikaner...for whom records exist. However, there has been little interest shown in South Africa to effectively track ages of persons. Note that since we have claimants claiming ages up to 133 years old, the politics of race come into play. Suppose we have a validated, 112-year-old white person in South Africa...along with three blacks claiming to be 133, 126, and 121 years old but who are really aged 102, 109, and 105. The news is not going to report that the 112-year-old is South Africa's oldest person. Thus, we have in South Africa an example of what happens when age verification is NOT important...false/exaggerated claims mask the real cases. It doesn't matter that age-inflation is 'universal' (in times past, Englishmen claimed to be 207, 169, 152, etc)...people see race and immediately presume bias, when in fact the bias is the other way around: when records are absent, there is nothing to keep age inflation in check.Ryoung122 10:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Neal mentions that GRG doesn't have an Ireland correspondent. What would a correspondent need to do? Is it purely a full time job for people working in the field of gerontology, or can someone do it to a certain degree on an amateur basis? If it can be done through a certain amount of correspondence and the odd visit to records offices in Ireland then I would be pleased to help in the absence of an Ireland based correspondent. I live in London and Dublin is less than an hour's flight time away. In the meantime I have found this website: - Centenarian Bounty Scheme. It concerns an allowance paid by the Irish government to Irish-born centenarians living at home and abroad. How could we approach them to find out how old their claimants are and have been? Rrsmac 00:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Rrsmac has been bold, I will throw my hat into the ring for this job that probably doesn't exist. I live in Wales so I'm only a ferry journey away from Ireland, and my best friend is from Dublin. I'm also good with a microfiche (I'm really grasping at straws now). Captain celery 00:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Greetings,

Being the 'GRG correspondent for Ireland' would be an unpaid volunteer position. The primary expection would be to identify Irish persons aged 108 and over (if you want to track at 105, fine, but ages 105-107 are generally too numerous to report, unless someone were the 'oldest woman' or 'oldest man' in Ireland) and verify their ages if they reached 110. If you are both really interested, I suggest first joining this group here:

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

You can then give us timely updates on: Ireland's oldest person, oldest man, any woman aged 108+ and any man aged 107+ in Ireland.

If you 'choose' to do earlier ages, I have a correspondent in Germany who has a massive collection of pictures of people aged 105+. However the GRG only puts up pictures of persons who have reached age 110.

If you establish a track record for timely and knowledgeable reporting, then perhaps a promotion to GRG would be in the cards. The bottom line is: the GRG system is sort of a 'feudal' structure: you would be expected to be the person 'responsible' for Ireland. However, given Ireland's low population (about 4 million) it would definitely be a part-time, not full-time, pursuit.

Finally, here's a typical example of what you would do:

Both of these women were reported to have reached age '109' in 2005. No subsequent information is available. Can you find a death date, or are they still living?

Ireland Irene Richardson May 29, 1896 109* W F Ireland Alice Northridge June 27, 1896 109* W F

Or, how about this one: can someone find the birth and marriage certificates for this woman?

Ireland Maggie Dolan July 27, 1893 Dec. 2, 2004 111 128 W F Ireland

Sincerely Robert YoungRyoung122 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oooh. If both you guys think you can help, that'd be great. If you can find information of the oldest people in Ireland, that'd be even better. One of the advantages out of the Internet are cases of local newspapers. If someone had a "105th" birthday in Ireland and put on the newspaper, it may not reach the Internet. What correspondents typically do is travel around their country meeting the oldest people of their country, such as contacting the family or nursing homes, attending birthdays, and with a digital camera, take photos of the person's birth certificate, find them in the census, etc. For example, there was a photo of Katherine Plunket (1820-1932) in a local newspaper. Such a photo has not been uploaded to the Internet, so if you guys think you can track newspapers like that, that'd be great. It isn't a full-time job, no, no one gets paid for it. More like a hobby. Neal 19:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oldest living person is deceased

Mrs. Minagawa died on August 13th, 2007. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22241913-5005961,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.10.240.1 (talk • contribs)

You know, you're better off editing the articles and putting the link in your edit message (in case people suspct you of vandalism). If we have to have a new entry for everytime the oldest person in the world dies.. Mmm. You posted the link so someone else can edit it, right? Neal 00:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that "Nation of death" is not really an appropriate section title. What about "Supercentenarians listed by nation", or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srn (talk • contribs)

Denying death is not appropriate. A person can live in six different nations in their lifetime, but they are only born in one place and only die in one place.

Ryoung122 13:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

New World's Oldest Person?

This article claims that a Russian has documentation to support the claim of 117 years. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070814/wl_nm/russia_oldest_dc_1 TimothyPilgrim 13:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Russians also claimed they didn't kill Alexander Litvinenko.Ryoung122 13:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And when that documentation to support the claim comes into publication..... Neal 16:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nationality & ethnicity

Is it appropriate to write "Black American" beside some folk but only "American" rather than "White American" or "Native American" besides others? -- SGBailey 22:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a column for race/ethnicity. Were you thinking of adding 1? I don't see a problem with that, except a lot of it is common information, i.e., almost all supercentenarians from Japan are Japanese, from France, French, etc. Almost all blacks are from U.S.A. Were you thinking of dividing up the oldest blacks into their own table? Neal 09:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No. It just seems wrong to me to describe some folk as "Black American" and others as just "American". Either they should all be "American" or they should be "Black American", "White American" etc. I'll edit the article and remove the "Black"s. -- SGBailey 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Guadeloupe and New Caledonia

Considering the tiny populations (400,000 and 240,000) of these islands, it's remarkable that both currently boast supercentenarians. Something in the air? New Caledonia has Marie-Louise L'Huillier aged 112y 52d, while Guadeloupe even had two (Mathilde Octavie Tafna died last May at 112y 58d, Eugenie Blanchard is still alive at 111y 182d). What are the chances of that? Though these are officially "overseas bits of France", I think these people, who spent their entire life on their island so nowhere-near France, should get a place among the national record holders. Afasmit 07:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think some people (such as those listing the Channel Islands and Faeroe Islands as 'nations', are going to far. First off, regarding French overseas territories, you have to know something about the French empire of the 19th-early 20th century:

http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Love-Histories-France-Pacific/dp/0195162951

Just as the UK settled places like Canada and Australia, France sent their 'emigrants' to far outposts of the colony, whether New Caledonia, Guadeloupe, or French Polynesia (compare this to places like Italy and Ireland and Russia, who sent mass waves to America, and whose populations gradually Americanized). True, even Algeria was a 'part of France' from 1890 to 1962 (so listing Anne Primout as the Algerian recordholder is a bit suspect, and smacks of attempts at making the database seem more 'diverse' than it really is). The fact of the matter is, these areas were often indoctrinated into the French Empire which included learning the French language and culture. Moreover, while many empires crumbles in the 20th century (torn apart by Nationalism) France has so far kept a disproportionate overseas territory: some, such as Mayotte, even voted to stay part of the empire.

However, the real reason for the current listing has to do with legalism: places like Guadeloupe are counted as part of the French population and are allowed to vote in French elections (this is the main difference between Guadeloupe and Puerto Rico: Puerto Ricans cannot vote in Congress or for U.S. president, and are not counted by the census as part of the U.S. population). In short, places like New Caledonia are currently the French version of Hawaii. Yes, the USA conquered Hawaii and annexed it illegally, but it's still the U.S. Hawaiians are counted as part of the U.S. population and get to vote for representatives in Congress and electors for president.Ryoung122 11:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, and it's understandable, though I find it silly that a person in Monaco, for all practical purposes a town in France, may be listed while a person who has never been in a 5000 mile radius of France won't (for being a French citizen). By the way, New Caledonia never was an overseas department. It was a colony until 1946, then became an overseas territory until 1999, is something more autonomous now, and may vote for independence in 2014. I don't know if they can vote in French elections. If it becomes independent, it'll be just like Australia (Christina Cock was born in the British colony of Victoria) or Puerto Rico (Emilano and Ramona were born in a Spanish colony).

Monaco has been 'independent' since 1297, and was originally an ITALIAN city-state...it was never French. Marie-Louise Lhuillier and Eugenie Blanchard both were born with French names to French parents of French ethnic origin. They live in areas that are officially counted as 'part of France' with representation in the French legislature. Even if New Caledonia declared independence in 2014, Marie-Louise would be long-gone (unless you think she'd make it to 119). In any case, if Marie makes it to the top of the French list, would she be considered the 'oldest person in France'? We'll have to wait and see.

For sanity's sake I hope that, if New Caledonia would become independent after her death, Marie-Louise would still be considered the national recordholder of that new nation (unless someone got older then her). At any rate, though it is interesting (and maybe even significant) that 3 of the six oldest "French" people in April 2007 lived on two small islands in the tropics, my question about the disputed cases below was more serious. Could you address that, Robert? Afasmit 19:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Note we had a similar issue with the U.S./Puerto Rico. However, considering that Puerto Ricans doen't vote and aren't counted as part of the U.S. population, it's a different story.Ryoung122 08:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer my own silly question, I suppose the odds of having two supercentenarians (they actually both were over 111 in April 2007) living at the same time on Guadeloupe (given 75 supercentenarians randomly distributed over perhaps a billion people with verifiable birth data), is something like (75 * 400,000/1 billion) squared, or about 1 in 10,000. In other words, it's bound to happen somewhere, though I still wonder what water they drink there. Afasmit 19:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico had 2 supercentenarians up until May 29, 2004, when the oldest woman in the world from Puerto Rico died. Neal 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico has 10 times more inhabitants than Guadeloupe, but you're right, this was remarkable as well, as both would be the oldest person in the world for a while. Time to move to the Caribbean ;-) Afasmit 05:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed cases in "Oldest living people" table

Sorry to drag up an old dispute again, but, since this list is stated to be "retroactive", I don't see why cases that later are shown to be very weak (e.g. James Henry Brett, Shigechiyo Izumi, Carrie C. White) shouldn't be replaced with undisputed data. They could go in as footnotes. Leaving these in allows people to argue that other claims, never accepted because the weaknesses were discovered in time, should be added as well (and Richard Washington would be at the bottom of the list now...). I also don't buy the anti-scientific "the referee at that time thought so" argument; new evidence is as valid as evidence that was available earlier and if facts contradict long-hold believes, you don't change the facts, but your believes. Afasmit 10:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing with Carrie White is that her entry is not taking the recognition away from anyone else. Jeanne Calment would just have a longer reign. That's not to justify her inclusion, just that it doesn't matter so much. With Brett there is Rosalia Spoto and Christina Karnebeek, and with Izumi there are loads of people being 'held back'. If we did exclude him we would be scrabbling for some of the oldest men entries, and there would be the Mathew Beard debate. Again, not a justification, but difficulties. Captain celery 23:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

This is not a real issue. Wikipedia has a policy of 'no original research.' Unless the case is retracted, we should keep it. Note that even though DOUBT has been cast on the Izumi, White, and Hongo cases, in each instance the evidence was either not produced or was it was not certain. This differs from a case such as Pierre Joubert where a scientific paper was published explaining why the case is false. Note in the Hongo case, there was evidence in both directions: her oldest child was born in 1909 and her mother in 1845. Perhaps she could have been a year or two younger, but not by much.Ryoung122 14:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If she was a year younger then she would still have been the oldest person, except with a shorter reign, following Grace Clawson and Adelina Domingues. Captain celery 21:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

New claim

There is a woman still living in Manaus, Amazon, Brazil, her name is Maria Amelia Costa dos Santos, she was born in May 15th 1888, as of this moment she is 119 and 94 days old, which would make her the oldest person currently living. I think the oldest living people page needs updating. I even have the newspaper article here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belinhausa (talk • contribs) 21:47:44, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, but without any proof or whatsoever this is an unvalidated claim, so no chance at all really of getting her listed. Extremely sexy 22:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's nice to be gullible and believe everything you read. Neal 06:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

More flags

I like the new look with more details of where the supercentenarians have come from and the state flags for the US superC's. How about a Guernsey flag for Margaret Ann Neve in the "Notable early supercentenarians (died before 1950)" section of the Oldest People page?Rrsmac 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you did that, might as well put the U.S. state flag for every supercentenarian from the states? Hmm. Neal 06:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

I think its incredibly 'unfair' to 'divide and conquer' nations that happen to be doing well in the 'longevity sweepstakes.' Replacing U.S. flags with state flags is NOT CONSISTENT with the policies applied to most other nations. Also, attempting to divide up France or even the UK into 'regions' misses the whole point of the article. This article is intended to be a general summary of the WORLD'S oldest people, on a world-scale. We already have more detailed coverage elsewhere...national longevity recordholders, list of living supercentenarians, etc.

We can also add 'state' flags to the article about the individual person...but a state flag should NEVER replace the national flag; it should only be in addition to it. That goes for Quebec/Canada as well. Unless of course they vote for independence.

Ryoung122 09:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Robert on this, although I hadn't considered it as dividing and conquering. From the European perspective it seemed US centric, because most non-Americans will not recognise the state flags, whereas we all know The Stars and Stripes, like we know the Union Flag, the Rising Sun, the Tricolour etc. Anyhow, for both reasons I think national flags are best. Captain celery 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

One more idea: we could also make a 'list of U.S. state longevity recordholders.' Anyone keep to that?Ryoung122 09:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the U.S. State longevity list. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Neal 04:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I started a table here: it needs formatting issues. I have the data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_longevity_recordholders

Ryoung122 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

Greetings,

This page is often heavily vandalized (see recent edit histories). Can we block 'new users' from editing, at least when a 'world's oldest person' passes away?Ryoung122 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oldest man since 1964

Robert, you say that the 'oldest man since 1964' is wrong. Well I have every edition of the Guinness Book of Records, at least the British versions, and back then I think the British version was THE version. The first time an oldest man is listed was John Turner in 1964. Walter Williams was only ever listed as 'oldest person' from 1956.

A few months back I changed the oldest man table. I believe it had Friedrich Wedeking as the first from the age of 105 in 1968. I thought that since one 105 year old was listed, why not add two others, John Turner from 1962 and James Brett from 1955, with Joseph Saint-Amour in between. Brett was removed, presumably due to his dubious status.

Later I added Khasako Dzugayev from 1968-1970, leaving Turner as the only 105 year old. Considering we have Lovisa Svensson listed at 108 for the same time that may not be so pessimistic, but I wanted to find a way of alleviating that problem, and also the fact that Saint-Amour's reign begins when Brett dies. I think I found a good way of doing that, and by reverting it, those problems come back. Captain celery 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, only one error at a time! A lot of what you said above is INCORRECT. I started the 'oldest living man' at 1961 because the James Henry Brett, Jr. case is disputed, but Joseph St. Amour is not. The table NEVER had Friedrich Wekeking at the start...it may have been John Moseley Turner.

I personally don't think the 'oldest man' in the 1960's was a mere 105 years old...this is more of an artifact of a lack of research than reality.

And this could be the same that we don't think the oldest woman in the 1960's is a mere 107 year old, but they're listed as well. Neal 16:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

Also, I don't think Friedrich Wekeking was even in Guinness. Someone added him on the basis of German records.

Third, I said that Guinness established the 'oldest living man' title 'permanently' in the year 2000. Since that time, there has been a Guinness titleholder. If Guinness intermittently had titledholders before that, it was sparing.

Finally, why should we delete a proven case (Joseph St. Amour)? That doesn't make sense to me.Ryoung122 03:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

True enough, we know of an oldest man of 105 or above, back to 1948. But knowing Robert, he won't allow them, since he wants them "Guinness official." He won't allow previous oldest person before 1955, so I doubt he will allow previous oldest man before 1964. I can't even add Elizabeth Kensley's middle name because it wasn't mentioned in the Guinness book or add the region of UK Anna Eliza Williams is from because it wasn't in the Guinness book without Robert's reverts.. I'm sorry Captain celery, you probably won't win this 1. Edit: Oh yeah, I haven't heard of the Walter Williams case, you think you can send me his date of birth - date of death? Thanks. Neal 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Neal, given that the 1960's holes have yet to be filled, what is the point of stretching the rubber band even further back? As for the other two comments, I disagree with those and I don't know where you got those ideas from. If you have SOURCES for your claims, go ahead and add them...to the individual articles. No need to add them to THIS article. Also, Walter Williams was a false case...he claimed to be 117 but turned out to be 105.Ryoung122 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course they can be added to this article. So what if the U.S. Guinness books didn't mention Anna Williams region of UK but the British Guinness books did? Neal 16:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

The point was that Robert reinstated Joseph Saint-Amour from when James Brett died. The problems with this are that although this excludes Brett it also acknowledges him, and it takes John Turner's reign back to 105. It's not like Saint-Amour's article would go to waste because he's on 'oldest person'. To be fair to Robert he usually puts forward fairly compelling arguments to support his position, but in this case I am taking the wording straight from Guinness. It is arguable the other way because they included an oldest living person in two of the 1956 editions and 1958, who happened to be a man.

That was the '5 star general' Walter Williams, supposedly the last US Civil War vet born November 14 1842. When he died on December 19 1959 there was a day of mourning and a military funeral. By the 1960 edition they'd found that he was missing from the 1850 census and listed in 1860 as born 1855. Admittedly we accept that Lennart Ronnback fought in the Finnish Civil War at 12 but 9 is really outlandish. And why would he have exaggerated if not to claim his $435.45 monthly pension?

I think that debacle put the McWhirter's off including an oldest living person for a few years. They introduced the national records table in 1962 but all the entries had died before Williams. They were certainly aware of Brett's supposed age at least by 1963 when they included him for having had an operation at 111. In hindsight perhaps that caution was justified in his case. In 1964 they listed John Turner as oldest living man, albeit for Britain, but it looks like he was the oldest in the world, and that was my justification for that cut off point.

They also listed Elizabeth ALICE Kensley in table format, as the oldest ever person from Britain and still living. Of course she was also the oldest living in the world. They even listed a Matilda Coppins as the previously oldest person from Britain, as if to compensate for the barren spell. Perhaps the problem here is that I'm going by different books to Robert. I have Anna Williams dying in Swansea, Wales. The early editions were very UK centric, since the brothers were based in London, but I didn't know that there were foreign versions back then. 84.13.18.5 01:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Captain celery

OK, so you just admit above that John Turner was listed as the 'oldest living man' in Britain...not the world. At least in 1964. So, I don't see a reason to 'start' in 1964. Since we don't see any compelling male cases before Joseph St. Amour, he is a good place to start.

Also, the June 1860 census listed Walter Williams as '5' years old. But since his birthday was in November, this suggests a birthdate of Nov 1854 (not 1855). And yes, Mr Williams didn't claim to be a Confederate soldier until 1934, during the Depression, when the state of Texas instituted a 'Confederate pension'...which he then promptly applied for (and at first claimed birth in 1846; later he changed it to 1842).

By the way, if you have SOURCING why not send it to me? What are the birth/death dates for Matilda Coppins?Ryoung122 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm okay, looks like I have yet add some more Confederate soldiers to my tables. Thanks for the heads up. Also, can you tell me when Matilda Coppins was born/died? She's also a new case for me. Anyways, I agree that the Britain Guinness books would be more "authentic" than the U.S. Neal 13:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it's more authentic. I'd give them equal credence, but if British books have details which American ones don't then they should still be included. But Elizabeth Kensley's middle name and Anna Williams' birth and death places are on their articles so maybe you won that one. For now we may have carte blanche, but if Robert wants changes when he gets back to us, he is quite the sophist, so you don't stand a chance. It's like arguing punctuation with Bart.

Matilda Evans was born October 10 1842, married Mr Coppins, and died December 22 1951. The records which supposedly show Marie Andersson died at 117 in 1946 were destroyed in the war, so I can see why we don't go back before then. But since we have some data perhaps the ten years in between could be filled in. And that's also about the time when British compulsory birth certification kicked in. Before then it was just Sweden's.

There's a good Walter Williams article on 'last US veterans', although the William Lundy one is hilarious. It's interesting that with Brett, Houston had two supposed male supercentenarians in 1959. GRG only has six SC men now, so two in one city would be impressive. In the fifties it was downright fishy. But I wonder what Brett's motivation was. Unlike Williams he never said he was a Civil War vet. He claimed to have been 15 when it finished so he could have fought, and why not exaggerate a bit more? 89.241.191.34 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Hm okay, turns out none of the last Confederate veterans were oldest man in world. And I agree with the hilariosness of the William Lundy article. Thanks for the Matilda Evans data; she was a new 2nd oldest person in the world for me. If you have any other data like that from the British books I'll take 'em. We probably could drop back a decade from 1945, but that may lower Betsy Baker's starting age to 106, which we might not do despite leaving some 107 year olds in the '60s. Neal 17:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT: Why don't both of you make a concerted effort to either re-write the William Lundy article, or at least TAG it (i.e. 'controversial/disputed)? Please try to be a little more pro-active.Ryoung122 03:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why I wanted John Turner's reign to start later. The amazing thing about Betsy Baker is that you look back at other cases listed at the time, but she always bookends them. I imagine you're refering to Isabella Shepeard as Baker's predecessor. Incidentally, she died in the city where I was born.

The Isabella Shepheard case is also problematic: she claimed to be '115' and Guinness says she was 'more probably' 109. But we don't know that she was 109 for certain, or where that information came from. Care to investigate?Ryoung122 03:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, so she was debunked. That's fine. Just like Martha Graham. Oh. but why is Martha Graham included in the table? Oh! Because of her children. Anyways, as per investigating her, does Dr. John MacCormack know about her? Neal 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with the men is that all the Civil War claimants could cloud things going back to the fifties, but then again there have always been dubious cases. The William Lundy article looks like it was written by a Confederate lunatic trying to convince people about a man who died literally 50 years ago (tomorrow). Even us sticklers for detail couldn't be bothered to correct it. 89.242.112.103 08:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Aimé Avignon dies

Judging by Bart's updates, Mr Avignon has died, which leaves the problem of 10th place. When Elias Wen died there was a big gap between Avignon and Aarne Arvonen, but he had been mentioned as the next in line and so I added him, and he is still there. This time there is a smaller gap. I know that not every man approaching supercentenarian status is a WW1 vet, but Louis de Cazenave has also been mentioned as next in line, and he is very close to 110. If there is someone older, then I apologise. Captain celery 23:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

He has indeed regrettably, and Cazenave is still in good condition judging by his pictures. Extremely sexy 13:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Middle name removal

An anonymous user has recently gone through and removed a number of middle names and initials from displayed names. Can anyone explain what exactly the point of doing this is? DerbyCountyinNZ 00:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a 'style' issue. I do have a problem, however, with middle names removed when a person's full name was used in the media (i.e. Mamie Eva Keith, Anna Eliza Williams, Maren Bolette Torp). If you don't like it, change it back. Remember, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit.' Ryoung122 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I own up. That was me. I just thought that it was an unnecessary detail. Of course middle names should be included on individual articles but I'd prefer for the article titles not to include middle names unless for disambiguation. I didn't know how to change that but I did take them off the main page. It is indeed a style point. Obviously, I left hyphenated names because they are part of the first or surnames. For some Latin countries I know that the policy is to take both the paternal and maternal names (although if only one is used then it's the paternal) so I also left those.

I can understand why the 'oldest living by country' page was reverted, since the middle names will be needed if articles are created. They could be found in the citations but I admit that this is easier. The one I would query is George Francis since he already has an article and Rene is not included on the main page. As far as the media thing goes I can understand why Anna Williams' middle name was included - to disambiguate. Maybe it's my British bias, but Mamie Keith and Maren Torp do not seem like common names, which suggests to me that it is a hit and miss issue. That's why I would say that we should generally leave out middle names. 89.240.82.229 20:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

I just see it as a 'style' issue. Note actor 'Seann William Scott' uses three names...to disambiguate? Maybe. But maybe also because the syllabic stress sounds better. Ma-mie E-va Keith...Ryoung122 09:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Page is really confusing

Why are there so many different tables? It's organized rather poorly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.140.85 (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Subjective question. And I'll just ignore your second sentence since you didn't have anything else to add to it. Neal 16:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oldest living man

Some candidates for the 'top 10' oldest living men include others from Japan:

• 1896/10/18 Giichi Okumura (M, Hokkaido, Japan)
• 1897/03/05 Shozo Otani (M, Niigata, Japan)
• 1897/04/19 Jiroemon Kimura (M, Kyoto, Japan)
• 1897/08/02 Kiyoshi Igarashi (M, Hokkaido, Japan)
• 1897/08/20 Masatake Kinoshita (M, Okayama, Japan)

Together with Tomoji Tanabe and Sukesaburo Nakanishi...that would be 7 (except the lower cases wouldn't be in the top 10 anymore!). Ryoung122 09:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: we can confirm the above 5 to be living as of Sept 2006. If/when the Sept 2007 list is released, we'll find out who is still with us and who's a contender and who's a pretender (i.e. Louis de Cazenave, currently 10th on the list; Arne Aarvonen, in 9th, etc.). Ryoung122 09:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sukesaburo Nakanishi: is he alive or dead? He isn't listed on the living page and there is a news report saying he died, so how comes he is still on the list? I'd take him off myself, but don't wanna mess if he isn't. Webbmyster 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

He isn't listed on the living page. Then perhaps he died. Oh, so there's a news report saying he died. Then that must be it then! How come he is still on the list? Contradicting question? Neal 16:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nakanshi died August 22nd

the top ten Oldest men and women are Extemly young. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.12.208 (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What does your statement have to do with your topic? Neal 16:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But nevertheless: he definitely is dead allright. Extremely sexy 18:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)