Jump to content

Talk:List of the verified oldest people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.209.33.95 (talk) at 02:23, 4 December 2007 (→‎Gregorian adjustment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Race"

I am uncomfortable with the column in the table which is titled "Race". I am not a vigilant follower of everything that is "PC" but I think accuracy is something that Wikipedia thrives on. The great majority of the entries on this table for "Race" are "B", "W", or "O", which I presume mean "Black", "White" and "Oriental". I can't find any key first off. The other two who don't fall into this category are "H" and "I", which I assume are for "Hispanic" and "Indian". Fistly, without any offence intended, doesn't Emiliano Mercado Del Toro qualify as "W" as a descendant of presumably Spanish forebears rather than "H" when Iberian Super-C's are classed as "W".

Greetings,

Where known, the 'race' classification is according to family wishes and/or public information. In the cases of Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan and Maria Capovilla, the family said they were 'white.' In Mr. Del Toro's case, the family did not say but he appeared to be darker. I think it would be erroneous to assume he was 'white'.R Young {yakłtalk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Lucy D'Abreu is classed as "I" which I assume means "Indian". Her maiden name was D'Souza which is a Portuguese name, as was her married name. I don't know her heritage; nothing is mentioned in any article on her I have read. All we know is that she was born in India. Here we get into grey area.

Many coastal residents of India have European names, in part due to colonies such as Goa. The family indicated she was Indian.R Young {yakłtalk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of the oldest people is biased in one way. It only features (almost entirely) absolutely verifiable cases. This means that the majority of featured people are from a small number of countries where records are easily verifiable.

Like a Fortune 500 list? Other countries need to 'clean up their act' if they want on the list.R Young {yakłtalk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, what is very interesting is that as these countries are ethnically diverse and have been (particularly USA) for many decades, we are seeing that this is evidently no disparity between longevity and so-called "races". This is not like a list for "10 best times in 100metres sprint for men" or "10 best 1500metre swimmers of all time", which may not only take anatomical factors into account but social ones too. But then again, saying that, anatomy and "nature and nurture" must figure in longevity.

Also, who is to say how many of the list are not of mixed race? How do we work that one out? What I am saying is that the fact that this list (incomplete as it may be without Russian or Chinese entries) is very ethnically diverse. You could not take a race and say that "they" live longer.

"Race" is considered by many to be a social construct. Biologically, there are gradations of variation but a line cannot be drawn (National Geographic did an article on this recently). I.e., we can determine genetically whether someone is European or African in clear-cut cases but not in borderline cases (i.e. mixed heritage).R Young {yakłtalk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I can only talk about a parity between "races" over longevity by virtue of seeing the "Race" column on this page so in some ways this is a self-defeating argument but I don't think we should have a "Race" column. It is possibly assumed and inaccurate; and what exactly does it prove? I think we should celebrate that we have a list of "greatest ever in human history" which may be possibly broken by someone from any of a diverse set of ethnic backgrounds.

For one, I think the "race" column helps us NOT to assume...should we assume that Susie Gibson was 'black' because she was Mississippi or that Luce Maced was 'white' because she was from France, we'd be wrong.R Young {yakłtalk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I think we should remove the "Race" column in the "List of the oldest people" table.

This is my opinion. What does anyone else think? (unsigned comment)

I have to say I agree with you. Extremely sexy 23:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add it, but I don't see a reason to delete it. After all, if we're to have Moses Hardy as the 'last African-American veteran or WWI' or Jackie Robinson as 'breaking the baseball color line,' then race is still important to many.R Young {yakłtalk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very informed reply Robert. When I wrote my opinion, I was not aware of your profession and I hope you don't take offence at my suggestion that the list is biased to a few countries. I was using the word "biased" in a literal sense. I mean it as a statement of fact, not a criticism. I agree that the reason the list is "biased" is that only certain countries have kept clear records. I am a British person and an amateur genealogist so I am happy that records in my country are fairly good going back a long way. I never said that the "race" column was offensive to me, just that it could be seen as such if not overseen with absolute vigilance. I'm glad we've debated this matter. Perhaps we should leave the column for now and review it if someone does take offence. Rrsmac 01:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the reason why this page should include the race of the people on the list. Why should I care what race the oldest people on this planet had? I find it more interesting from what country those people came from, how old they became/ are, and when they were born. That's it. I mean, we could also add straight or gay, smoker or non-smoker, religion, or even favourite colour to the list, but what difference does that make? I think "race" is just irrelevant, and a little bit offending. --Robster1983 14:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It should be removed. Anyone disagree? -|AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The fact that someone is 'uncomfortable' with it actually means it is a worthwhile label. More than that, however, there is a scientific basis for inclusion: many of the longevity theories of the past were that persons of certain nationality or race lived longer than others. With the current format, we can see the mix of races and nationalities and conclude that, statistically, there really isn't much difference, if any...the major differences seem to be 'gender' and 'sample size.' This argues that the next thing to do is to add a 'gender' category, to demonstrate how prevalent females are amongst the top-100. In fact, it might be said that much media coverage of the 'oldest' has been biased in favor of males. Showing the true gender ratio makes a lot of sense.Ryoung122 04:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Robert (wow: there's a first), so write this down. Extremely sexy 09:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, there is a 'gender' listing ('sex'). Perhaps the two small columns should be next to each other (on the right), however.

In actuality, I find the 'nationality' to be slightly offensive...it runs the risk of jingoism, and ignores the truth that we are all more alike than different. Also, 'nationality' papers over historical truths (i.e. many people in France are Italian immigrants). Yet I understand there is some common connection: for example, in the UK the healthcare system and climate are generally considered to be worse off than much of Mediterranean Europe (Spain, Portugal, southern France, and Italy especially). So, there can be arguments for and against any labeling.

I disagree with gay/straight, however, because most people born 110+ years ago lived at a time when 'coming out' was considered unconscionable, something people were thrown in jail for (Oscar Wilde). Thus the data wouldn't even be available.Ryoung122 04:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it had been made pretty clear "races" did not exist; I just don't see the point of the race column... white race, hispanic race...doesn't make any sense to science, there can be more differences between one white person and one hispanic person than between two white persons, genetically speaking I mean. And what about "race" mixes"? Some use the expression "mixed race persons", but it would mean that half black/half white is the same "race" as half hispanic/half indian...etc. This is not serious. What's the point of putting a "race" column in a scientific interest, when the word race has no scientific meaning whatsoever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.194.50.125 (talk • contribs)

Greetings,

PLEASE SIGN your posts. And quit with the arrogance. Sociologists and others debate whether races 'exist' or even the meaning of race...all the while biological/genetic testing can identify race-based differences. They can do testing and determine if your ancestors came from Europe, China, or Africa. Arguing that race doesn't 'exist' because the boundaries are 'fuzzy' is like arguing that rainbows don't exist because you can't tell the exact spot where the colors change. Perhaps 'cities' don't exist because we can't tell where the 'city' ends and the 'country' begins.

I suppose 'dog breeds' don't exist either due to the existence of 'mutts.' It's like saying that 'red flowers don't exist' because when you cross a red flower with a white one, you get a pink flower. Sorry, that argument clearly doesn't hold water.

Further, the public holds interest in race: otherwise, they wouldn't mention Jackie Robinson and the 'color line', would they?Ryoung122 10:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Can you give any good proof of that? That sounds just like something a stereotypical american racist would say. I do not think there's any reason to show what "race" a certain person has/had. It's extremely stupid. Why should USAs constant racism be spread on wikipedia english? The majority of all english speakers does not live in USA. Writing out the "race" of someone is clearly the POV of a racist. Ran4 22:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the above opinion sounds like an anti-U.S. rant. Also, the USA's population is five times that of the UK. Third, despite nations like France trying to not list the race of persons, it is evident that interest in persons such as Julia Sinedia were partly due to race. It would be incorrect to assume the USA is the only multi-racial/multi-cultural nation. Should we assume that all French people are 'white' (i.e. Gaels Monfils or that people are completely oblivious to race when it comes to people like Serena Williams? Serena herself acknowledges Althea Gibson. Clearly, there is a widespread interest in race. Listing 'facts' should not be interpreted as 'opinion.' Please, spare me.Ryoung122 22:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm from the UK and not racist, but I think listing people's race is relevant in an article like this. It shows that race is not a major factor in longevity, and implies that it is not a major factor in general behaviour and lifestyle. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles about black people mention thier colour - in many cases it is what's interesting about them, being the first black/Chinese/Indian to achieve something - so why should this article be any different? Ignoring racial situations is far more racist than acknowledging them. --MartinUK 10:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree then. Extremely sexy 22:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the oldest people (correction)

  • No 46 on the list (Irene Frank), born Oct 1 1880, died Feb 28 1996.

My calculations make her 115 yrs and 150 days rather than the 114 years and 150 days listed. This would push her up to No 18 on the list, up from No 46 which she currently occupies. Can this be corrected? Twintwenty 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for periodic updating

  • Greetings, if persons don't want to update nearly every day, perhaps a once-a-month update would be enough? Of course if someone WANTS to, I suppose it's not an issue.

Peer Review

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 23:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Getting More Exclusive

  • Since the list began just a few months ago, already the minimum age for entry into the 'top 100' club has gone up from 113 years 137 days to 113 years 155 days. Soon it will be 113 years 161 days.R Young {yakłtalk} 14:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that Ann Samson has been added at #77, it means that Shitsu Nakano has been moved back to #100. She will overtake Maria Teresa Fumarola Ligorio in the next two days all being well, meaning the minimum age required for the top 100 will be 113y163days. The next oldest living outside of the top 100 all time are (at time of writing) Arbella Ewing (113y91d) and Marie-Simone Capony (113y90d).
  • If Shitsu lives another 21 days then Arbella will need to live to 113y163 to equal 100th place. If she lives another 22 days after that then Marie-Simone will need to live to 113y186days to win 100th place in her own right.

Or that's my calculations and observations. Rrsmac 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ties

  • If there is a tie isn't the placing typically the lower placing? Like if #30 and #31 are a tie wouldn't it be #31 since there's two people? -AMK152 13:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because there is only '29' people ahead of them. Tie means tie. For convenience, we list ties by alphabetical order or by first come, first served (in Western culture, that is).Ryoung122 03:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fannie Thomas

Bettie Chatmon

FONT SIZE

Gracia Borbon

  • Cases in this list should be VALIDATED. Please e-mail me at robertdouglasyoung@yahoo.com with a claim prior to list insertion. While this case deserves checking out, so far no authoritative work has been done to verify her age.Ryoung122 06:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes it seem like you think you have ownership of this list. While I completely agree with you that all cases should be validated (and equally importantly be cited and verifiable), anyone else has just as much right to add entries to this list as you. Currently there is not a single citation or reference on this entire page. - fchd 07:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please CUT THE EGO TRIP. This Spanish claim is NOT IN GUINNESS and, guess what, you can find all the listed cases in the 'see also' section. Considering how recent this page started, I find it a bit overblown to expect everything to be referenced already. If this case were verified, she would have been the 'oldest person ever' for several decades. To simply 'add' her to the lists, with NO documentation or explanation, is unsupportable. Last I checked, Mr. Bart Versieck...whom we don't get along very well...removed her, not me. So, is it I owning this page, or the right thing to do?Ryoung122 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it could be stated that EVERY case is referenced...just collectively, not individually. Considering that all the cases come from the sources listed in the references, I find it a waste of time to individually cite '100' cases when a list will do.Ryoung122 20:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has emerged that this 'case' was a hoax, after investigation by a Spanish authority:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/8930

Greetings,

A few months ago I found Gracia Medinaceli-Borbón in Wikipedia's list of centenarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_centenarians

The claim is as follows: Gracia Medinaceli-Borbón (1788-1901), duchess of Dúrcal, wife of José Ramón Rodil y Campillo

When searching for her in Google, all the sources are from Wikipedia and the information available is: - Wife of José Ramón Rodil y Campillo - Mother of Rita Rodil Medinaceli - Grandmother of Fernando Aguirre Rodil (Spanish actor) - Duchess of Dúrcal

After conducting some research outside Wikipedia, this looks to me as an invented case. Let me explain my findings:

a) JOSÉ RAMÓN RODIL He was a well known Spanish statesman and is amazing that even Wikipedia's page in English does not mention he was married with Gracia Medinaceli. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Ram%C3%B3n_Rodil_y_Campillo

I found a more reliable source including detailed info of his baptismal and death records. The article does not mention his wife or daughter, however it says that his heir was Francisco Alejo Gómez Herrazo, his butler.

Another well informed source simply says he was single.

b) DUCHESS OF DÚRCAL The "Ducado de Dúrcal" was created in 1885 and there was only two dukes and two duchesses to date. Gracia is not part of the genealogy tree, according to this page http://www.adurcal.com/enlaces/cultura/zona/Historia/duque/index.htm

c) RITA RODIL MEDINACELI I have serious doubts of the existence of Rita Rodil (she only appears in Wikipedia, as her mother). Even accepting her, there is a serious date mismatch as Gracia was supposedly born to be 94 years before her maternal grandson (Fernando Aguirre was born in 1882).

Conclusion, I don't consider this to be a false or exaggerated case, but an invented case.

Regards, Miguel

I await an apology. Ryoung122 10:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length Of The List

  • Since the ages given are in 'days,' the list has to be updated every day, just about. Making the list longer would make it impractical. Keeping it 'top 100' also gives an air of exlusivity/imporance and helps differentiate between 'all-time' aging 'greats' and just the 'best of the year' types. Also, Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is not supposed to be the in-depth, exhaustive coverage but a general overview. The lists down to 110 can be found at sites like www.grg.org.Ryoung122 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next person in the list

Use of commas

  • Does anyone know why commas suddenly appeared? I feel they are archaic and distracting, and detract from the fact that a person is one age, not two. Thus "114 years 206 days" is ONE age. Ryoung122 03:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of commas. It doesn't look right. Rrsmac 01:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now it's inconsistant. Anna Eliza Williams died at age 114 years 208 days. Yone Minagawa is livng at age 114 years, 208 days. The commas create inconsitancy with the living and non living people's ages. Either we should readd the commas or remove them from the template. -AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 23:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we living longer?

  • I was reading the opinions of someone the other day online who pointed out that the oldest person today is 114 years old, which is pretty much the same as 20 years ago. They said that all in all there has not been a great shift in the longevity of people in today's supercentenarians as compared to 20 years ago.
  • I would disagree. Though Yone Minagawa, the current oldest living, is only 114 years old, I think this is a statistical blip.

What is significant is that Yone Minagawa today equals the lifespan of Anna Eliza Williams at 114y208days. Twenty years ago, Mrs Williams was recorded as having lived the longest undisputed lifespan. (There is Mathew Beard and Mr Izumi to take into account). Today Mrs Minagawa and Mrs Williams are equal 33rd. Anna Eliza Williams has been overtaken many times and will continue to be so by my reckoning. What do you think?

  • We did see a large gain from 1987 to 1997. Perhaps the question is, what has happened since 1997? Note there was a period for more than a decade when the oldest person in the UK was always over 112. Now, the UK's oldest person is 111. Clearly, we are at some mid-decade lull. Of course, the records could spike up again.Ryoung122 18:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could definitely say that more people are living longer. On October 8th, I tallied the top 100 by decade of death, and the results are: 2000s - 57, 1990s - 34, 1980s - 7, 1950s - 1, 1920s - 1. Of course the data are a bit skewed because 1) the 2000s aren't over yet and 2) as time passes, more countries' citizens will be eligible because of better record-keeping. By focusing on the top 100, you can get a better picture of longevity trends, because the top 10 are constantly going to be dominated by somewhat questionable claims (on this list, 3 of the top 10 are disputed). Matthias5 14:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, Delina Filkins was recorded as the Undisputed Oldest Person Ever for over 50 years between 1926 and 1980. Since 1980 she has been overtaken 91 times and could theoretically be outside the top 100 within a year or two. Rrsmac 23:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, comparing the age of the oldest person in the world doesn't affect average lifespan. No correlation. Neal (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Verified?

  • The article says these are the oldest "verified" people, yet in several cases I see "?" next to birthdates and ages. Wouldn't that mean that such information is, er, unverified? Cap'n Walker 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In further clarification, this is my take on it, maybe RYoung is best placed to advise further. Guinness is a major source of authority in this field. Their verification process has been tightened considerably in recent decades. Consequently, cases which have attracted doubt over the test of time, such as Mr Izumi, may not have been approved as beyond doubt in this day and age. This list is only a few months old. Old cases which were "approved" by Guinness under old rules still make the table. Also, not all cases with a question mark are potentially unworthy of inclusion in the table. There are some where the exact date is unproved but there is certainty of the date being close to accurate, hence the question mark but no problem with inclusion in the table. This is my understanding. I will be happy for any corrections to my comments. Rrsmac 00:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guinness said they won't remove Izumi unless the Japanese government does so first. The Japanese government won't do so because it is a matter of 'honor.' Thus, the case is 'included' mainly as a historical marker. To me, it's like trying to remove Barry Bonds from the home run list...too much has been emotionally invested to 'admit' wrongdoing. So Izumi stays, but will be questioned. Also, those who made allegations against Izumi (including some Japanese scientists) 'leaked' the information and never published in detail proof that he was not 120 years old. Thus, we cannot 'confirm' that Izumi is not 120, like we can with some caught (i.e. William Coates, where the evidence was overwhelming that he was 92, not 114). I think the best thing to do it to leave the questioned cases with a ? mark and let the reader decide what to believe. All ? cases were accepted by Guinness except Anitica Butariu (accepted by Louis Epstein). In that case, no one has disputed her age; the dispute concerns that no one in the 'West' has the alleged 'validation' records that were produced by Dr. Victor Arsenie. To me, it's like an umpire's call in baseball: ball or strike? Sometimes a call can be argued either way. In any instance, Wikipedia policy should be to follow what the outside mainstream sources report. We see Izumi even in the most recent Guinness editions. Therefore, to remove him would be 'original research'. However, adding a ? mark is not: we can cite sources that question his age.Ryoung122 04:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Still Alive"?

  • "Still Alive" sounds a bit harsh... Sounds a little like "not dead (yet)". Isn't there something more tactful and NPOV-friendly we could use? A dash perhaps, or just "living"? The term "incumbent" is used for politicians and holders of important positions where they are still in the position, there might be an equivalently objective name for people that are still alive. Sean 21:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Race" redux

  • Greetings,

The main purpose of the 'race' category is to actually show that there is little or no variation in regards to 'maximum life span' when it comes to 'skin color'. Note that the terms in most cases reflect the person's own self-identifation; where that is not known, government classification data were used. As France does not classify its citizens according to race and persons such as Luce Maced have not been located in the media, the race is 'assumed' based on the fact that she lived in the Caribbean.

Please do not substitute 'African-American' for 'Black'. There are Black people in this list that are not Americans, such as Julia Sinedia-Cazour.

Finally, I used the term 'hispanic' to mean 'mestizo'. This is not a major issue as only one person (Emiliano Mercado Del Toro) appears to be 'mestizo'. Others, such as Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan, self-described themselves as 'white'.

Ryoung122 05:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

# 92 on list

  • Maybe that's the one of the secrets to longevity - the amount of time you have to spend giving your full name. My name is four words long and a total of 23 letters long. Perhaps that will guarantee me a reasonable lifespan. Rrsmac 23:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings, I feel it is inappropriate to list the 'full name' for #92...we don't list the full name for the others on the list. It seems that someone just gets a thrill out of trilling Spanish sounds.Ryoung122 10:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that we should perhaps shorten the name for consistency with the other names, but I would not know how to do this on this particular name. Can anyone advise how to shorten this name without missing out any part of her forename or surname? Rrsmac 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria de Jesus

Verified?

I find it paradoxal amusing that a list, that specified highlights that this is supposedly a list of oldest verified people, has a question mark for the age of placeholder number two (Shigechiyo Izumi). I’m familiarly with the case, in that I understand why there is a ? mark, yet obviously he is not undisputed verified. By some maybe, but obviously other does not consider it verified – which consequentially makes him unverified, and not suited for this list. So on the integrity of this list; is this a list of semi-verified people or actual verified people? Twthmoses 01:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Wikipedia reports what is reported by others. The Izumi case was 'verified' by Guinness and later disputed, and the dispute was not resolved. It's like asking "Why is Barry Bonds on top the Home Run list"? You know why...Ryoung122 02:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course wiki is not a place for original research, you don’t have to upper case that for me (never mind that wiki’s constantly up-to-date list of old people is in fact live original research,- which i like). Wiki does indeed report what is reported by others, and that is the whole point. How can a list were the intro says, highlighted, oldest verified people in world history, contain people that are not verified? What good is the list then, when there are in fact unverified or at least disputed people in the list? So I naturally question the integrity of this list. It does not say Guinness oldest verified people, or xxx’s oldest verified people,- it says oldest verified people in world history, - which I naturally understand to be regardless of source. People where there are zero questions about birth and death, undisputed cases, at least so little that the vast majority of sources consider it a closed case. That does not strike me as being the case with Shigechiyo Izumi.
The factual accuracy of the list is compromised already at number two spot! Even wikis own article of oldest people, states that several of these cases are disputed, what are they then doing on a verified list?, when they are not verified?
I did not make the list; I’m simply question the integrity and factual accuracy of a list that conveys to lists the oldest verified people in world history, when it is in fact not doing that. Twthmoses 04:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the previous entry in here under "Verified" (number 19 in Contents) covers this. There is also what seems to me to be an adequate explanation for Izumi's continued inclusion in the list.DerbyCountyinNZ 04:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I like these questions because my main objective here is to educate others as to what the maximum observed human life span really is. Jean-Marie Robine explained it as the concept of 'metadata.' Data from England and the U.S. is not strictly comparable in quality or depth (penetration) but the ages are still roughly comparable. A birth certificate written at the time of the birth event is more solid than a census match (for example, Maggie Barnes is listed as '115' but may have been '116', whereas we know that Charlotte Hughes was 115).

Also, data over time is not strictly comparable, either. In the 1960's very few supercentenarian cases have been identified, but by the 2000's there are so many cases that we have the opposite problem: some may go by unnoticed.

One thing I do want to address is your statement that "the factual accuracy of the list is compromised already at number two spot". I disagree. For one, the very existence of a ? mark lets the reader know right away that the case is not as solid as the Calment case. Second, like the Barry Bonds case...he took steroids, he claims that he 'thought it was arthritic balm.' So like the Japanese government, MLB won't admit GUILT. So Bonds stays. But his homerun record is devalued in the eyes of those who know about the case. Likewise, most readers will quickly skip over the ? cases. The real purpose of this list is to get away from over-reliance on #1. It doesn't take a genius to quickly realize that reaching age 113, while quite rare, certainly happens over and over again (every year for the past 20+ years). We can see that there's still a lot of 114-year-olds but by age 115 the list is thinning; by age 117 there are an extremely small (exceptional) number. So we can realize that, EVEN IF CALMENT WERE REAL, SHE IS AN OUTLIER (the "Michael Jordan of Aging"). Thus her age needs to be discounted a bit too--not on believability but on the fact that it doesn't happen regularly (can we expect every player that comes along to have the ball-handling ability of Michael Jordan? A definite NO. Can we expect someone to break Nolan Ryan's strikeout record any time soon? A definite NO). In other words, hitting a hole-in-one in golf is seen as like winning the lottery; it can be true and it can happen. But the best players go for birdies, not holes in one. So likewise we can see that the 'average maximum' world's oldest person is 114-116 years old. Age 114 can be expected every year. Age 122 cannot be expected to happen again any time soon, though it may become gradually more common in the next century.Ryoung122 10:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see what this has got to do with the issue here. This wiki article deals with verified people, meaning little or no doubt.
The comparison of Barry Bonds and Shigechiyo Izumi is not at all the same thing, on the contrary. Barry Bonds is comparable to the Canadian Ben Johnson. There is no question about whether Ben Johnson ran the fastest 100m in 1988; because 2 billion people saw it live on TV. He did do it. If I was to make a fastest 100m ever list, surely Johnson should be on it. Where I however to make a list of 100m world records, Johnson should not be on it, because it is a disqualified WR. Essentially no different then if there had been too much wind. It too would have been a disqualified WR.
Both Barry Bonds and Ben Johnson did do their deeds; the dilemma here is what list they should be featured on, which depends only on what the list wants to convey.
Shigechiyo Izumi is on (a) list(s), here the essential question is; did he actually do the deed? Does he really deserve to be on any list to begin with? Not at all comparable to the above two, the reverse in fact.
This list is not any list of old people, this is the top one hundred oldest verified people in world history. Apparently it is only me that sees the absurdity and paradoxical in placing semi-verified people on such a list. It is irrelevant whether he is historical important, Guinness favourite or “approved” old style, or the Japanese government won’t admit guilt (as you put it), if enough doubt exist, he is not verified, automatically disqualifying him from a verified list, and no amount of appeal to tradition will change that.
All articles on wiki in some way involving Shigechiyo Izumi states unanimously that there is doubt with his case. Either they are all just overreacting the amount of doubt that exists (quite possible, which makes them sort of faulty), or there is really enough doubt disqualifying him from a verified list. Negative proof has no place in old people talk (“we cannot 'confirm' that Izumi is not 120”), and as a consultant for Guinness you are well aware of that. Twthmoses 09:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you: all cases with at least some reason for doubt should be deleted, leaving only 100 % certain ones. Extremely sexy 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But...where exactly is this "evidence" that casts doubt on the veracity of the Izumi claim? If there was a younger brother, where is the evidence that he died? If the Izumi who died in 1986 was born later than 1865 where is the evidence for this? At the moment we have little more than a case of "We may have made a mistake". The original verification has not yet been disproved only questioned and should therefore be allowed to stand (but with the addition of a question mark indicating some doubt, as in other cases on the list).DerbyCountyinNZ 01:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update timing

The dates on this page update automatically. But they do not seem to update at 00.00 hours (Wiki time). It seems to happen later. Can anyone explain why? Alan Davidson 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are time-zone issues. I notice that usually the updates happen BEFORE the end of the day (EDT). Ryoung122 06:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so, whereas over here in Belgium it's already 2 o'clock in the morning apparently. Extremely sexy 15:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that at time 0:00 according to the Wiki time (which I understand is universal) the ages would be automatically updated. But I have found that after 0:00 time (wiki time) - there is a lag. (For me it should be 10:00 am local time; even when the wiki clock shows 0:30, sometimes the ages have not been updated???) Alan Davidson 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race

I would like to remove the Race column, for these reasons:

  • It doesn't seem particularly useful to me, considering that there is already a Country column.
  • The National longevity recordholders article doesn't contain a Race column.
  • I can find no other Wikipedia article or list in which people are divided by race.
  • There is no accepted classification of races, as you can read in the race article.
  • The genetic variation between people of the same race can be greater than that between people of different races.
  • The column was added by 124.180.16.217, who is almost certainly Jc iindyysgvxc, most of whose edits are vandalism.

Are there any objections? Mushroom (Talk) 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. I always thought it was both an unnecessary addition and unjustifiable categorisation. DerbyCountyinNZ 05:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it should be there. "Race" is a social construction, and race-based theories are that some people are 'superior' to others. Wouldn't showing that there is little or no difference, everyone lives the same, be a positive?

Also, a second reason: it shows that longevity is primarily genetic. Negative environments may lessen longevity, but positive/neutral environments don't increase it. For example, a black man said to be that he was 'surprised' that some black people lived as long as Bettie Wilson, 115, given the conditions for black people a century ago. The bottom line: giving such information is relevant because there is public interest, and because it helps paint a more informed picture.

As for which 'race,' we generally go by 'whatever the person or their family chooses themselves to be.' Ryoung122 06:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the race part. Alan Davidson 11:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with Robert and Alan: leave it in. Extremely sexy 13:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings,

I'm using 'hispanic' to mean ONLY 'mestizo'. If more people knew what 'mestizo' meant, I would use that term instead. Note, for example, that Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan could be said to be 'white hispanic' but NOT mestizo.Ryoung122 17:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leap days

On the discussion page of the List of living supercentenarians there has been a discussion regarding the impact of leap years and thus the accuracy of the day count. For this page there are three people on equal 39th position at 114 years and 183 days. This is calculated by the number of years and then the number of days to the date of death. But all years are treated the same whether on not they are 365 or 366 days. In fact for the three people in 39th position (where 114x365=41610):
Lydie Vellard LV lived 41610 + 28 leap days + 183 = 41821 days
Wilhelmina Kott lived 41610 + 27 leap days + 183 = 41820 days
Adelina Domingues live 41610 + 28 leap days + 183 = 41821 days
I don’t know whether we need to do anything as it is a relative minor matter. There may be other examples, but I have only look at this one.
I suspect that this list does not take into account the fact that the Gregorian calendar was not adopted by Romania until 1919, China until 1912 and 1929 (and some others). I suspect the respective ages of such individuals may be inflated by 13 days.
Note that the year 1900 had no 29 February. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you use {{Age in days}} or {{Age in years and days}} both of which use {{Gregorian serial date}} (although the latter does have some leap-year manipulation which I cannot vouch for) and both of which accept a start and end date. The 1st one should be fine though. If they're wrong, I suggest talking it to Template talk:Age in years and days. —Moondyne 04:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lydie Vellard 41821 days. 114 years 183 days

Per {{age in days}}: 41821
Per {{age in years and days}}: 114 years, 183 days.

—Moondyne 04:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I compared your example with Wilhelmina Kott (which above I calculated manually as 41820 days). The results using your two templates are:
Per {{age in days}}: 41820
Per {{age in years and days}}: 114 years, 183 days.
(You need to go into edit mode to see how the dates were inputed.)
This shows the correct number of days but still treats all years equally. I must repeat that this is a minor matter, as the problem will only ever be one day - but it would rank the three people above in my example differently. Alan Davidson (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Martha Graham is another example - she has lived one less day than the other two in 43rd position. Alan Davidson (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This also applies to the two in 78th position. Alan Davidson (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but how on earth could Bertha Fry not be equal (apart from five days, not six) to Fred H. Hale, Sr., both having been born on a December 1st and dying somewhere in November: explain this to me (if you can that is)? Extremely sexy (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that it's because Fred Hale died in a leap year after Feb 29 and therefore had an extra day added for that year only. And btw, isn't the DoB for Martha Graham just a nearest guess estimate?DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Fred Hale Sr, the number of days are calculated from 1 Dec 2003 until 19 November 2004 - and this includes the 29th Feburary 2004. (Indeed it is possible that two people could be born on the same date and die on the same date, with the same apparent interval - but in different years - and not live the same number of days.) Alan Davidson (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for clearing this up with a good explanation: thumbs up. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might I give a hypothetical example. One person was born 1 February 1890 and died 1 March 2003, and a second person was born 1 February 1891 and died 1 March 2004. They appear to both have lived 113 years and 1 month. Hower, the first one lived 113 years and 28 days, and the second person 113 years and 29 days. Or put another way: the first one lived for 27 leap days and the second person lived 28 leap days. Alan Davidson (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand: logical. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorian adjustment

I suspect that this list does not take into account the fact that the Gregorian calendar was not adopted by Romania until 1919, China until 1912 and 1929 (and some others). I suspect the respective ages of such individuals may be inflated by 13 days. On this list it would impact Anitica Butariu. If the birth date is a Romanian date then the Romanian year in 1919 was 13 days shorter, so she lived 13 days shorter which would put her in 17th position. The automatic calculator would treat all years equally - including leap years and 1919. Perhaps she should be put in 17th position with a footnote explaining that her total number of days is in fact less that the two above her. (Note the Gregorian calendar was adjusted in Europe in the 1580s, in England (and thus the US and other colonies) in 1752 - for other dates go to Gregorian calendar). Alan Davidson (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shigechiyo Izumi, who is number 2 on our list, was born in 1865. Japan adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1873. For Japan 1873 was 12 days shorter (not 13). Hence Shigechiyo Izumi has lived 12 days less; but his place on this list would not change. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bart - what do you mean by "three more than stated"? Alan Davidson (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Moreover, Emiliano Mercado del Toro actually lived 42,159 days, Bettie Wilson 42,156 and Anitica Butariu 42,147 days (three more than stated)" => well: just look at the templates for all three of them, Alan. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bart - I still do not get it - unless you mean the last three figures are 147 which is three more than the 144 - but that is merely a result of the fact that 115 years is 42,003 days (365x115 + 28 leap days).
Also, might I suggest we put in the original birth date - but leave in the calculation from the corrected Gregorian date for consistency with the rest of the table. For example AB 17 June but still 115 years 144 days. I believe the protocol is that such people still have there birthday on the original date even though one year was shorter. Hence she would have celebrated her 116th birthday on 17 June even though the total number of days would not reflect this. The footnote can state why. Pending your comments I have noted the birth date in the footnote. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Alan. Extremely sexy (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is (three more than stated) in footnote supposed to mean? Please explain further.- no correlation that I can see. Regarding Shigechiyo Izumi, the protocol should be to adjust both Anitica Butariu and he for uniformity regardless if it affects the place standing. No? (Unsigned comment - 72.209.33.95)

If it OK with everyone, I will put in the birth date; make the year and counter reflect the Greogorian date so that the number of years and days appears comparable. I will also remove the three day statement (but please put it back if I am missing something). Alan Davidson (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused, but those three lived for 115 years and some days, equalling 42000 days and the same days + 3. Extremely sexy (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that no one actually cares that all of this is blatant original research and has no place here. We report what the sources say, not what we think may or may not be right and may or may not have been taken into account. It is even admitted that you have no clue if this was already adjusted for or not! If the sources say that the person was born on day X and lived a total of Y days, then that is what we reproduce. Wikipedia is NOT I repeat NOT a place for original research. I am undoing all of these changes. Cheers, CP 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Alan were you the 1 who posted this a couple months ago on Robert's WOP forums? Someone presented a list. Now, what you could do, is go to the Shigechiyo Izumi article and etc., and present the discrepancy. But you can't change the data in the tables. Neal 01:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I am happy to leave it to others. To me it is the accurate collating of information from three sources - We all seem to know about these people on Wikipedia; and we know about Gregorian caledar on Wikipedia and we know about leap days on Wikipedia - you seem to be saying we cannot put it together. There's nothing original it; simply accurate reporting of known facts. To answer your question directed at me - I have made no postings to WOP forums - indeed I have not visited the site. I believe the accurate information should be in place. But, I do not engage in edit wars. If it is deserving of inclusion - others can deal with it. It really took some collation from those three Wikipedia sources only. Alan Davidson 07:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add the the footnotes for Kott, Graham and Fujisawa were also deleted. That involved merely being able to read a calendar correctly. Alan Davidson 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I strongly disagree with this reversal. There is no original research. It is a culmination of existing facts already known to Wikpedia. And if this list did actually show "that a person was born on day X and lived a total of Y days," then there would be no discrepancy, but the list doesn't- it shows years which are arbitrary follwed by days. So if the purpose of the list is to show the 100 longest lived supercentenarians by rank, then the list is once again most probably inaccurate.

And do we all know that this hasn't been taken into account already? No, which is why the note of "assuming this hasn't been taken into account already" was in the note. Not to mention that if people are dedicating their entirely scholarly life into discovering the world's oldest people and, where a difference of a day can mean everything, are ranking them, they're probably very aware of these things. And if they're not, it speaks poorly on their research. Not to mention that while you changed all the information on the tables, you didn't change it in the articles, so the information contradicted itself across Wikipedia. Finally, an original synthesis is still original research. Cheers, CP 20:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I remain in disagreement. Will someone please correct the article for Anitica Butariu which was changed and now by reverting back has apparently caused the contradiction. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.33.95 (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, in light of your comment "do we all know that this hasn't been taken onto account already?" Because the answer is no, I believe the two entries should have a footnote saying so. Either it has been previously adjusted or not. The amendments chose the more likely of the two and contained the notation. The reverted version contains information which is most likely incorrect with no notation for readers about its inaccuracy. I still suggest that being able to read a calendar for Kott, Graham and Fujisawa is OK. The two issues should be separated - as I believe you have a point regarding the Gregorian calendar amendments - but do not regarding the leap day issue. But I will leave any amendments to others. (PS This is all meant to be quite civil and I appreciate the way this debate is taking place).
Paul, would you agree with a footnote stating "It is unknown whether this birth date has taken into account the impact of the late adoption of the Gregorian calender by ... This person may be 13 days younger." Alan Davidson 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, yes, that note would be fine and I don't care whether you attach it to the individuals themselves or put it in the introduction or whatever. As for Kott, Graham and Fujisawa, I would be more comfortable with a similar note, rather than messing with the table again. Here the assumption is that the Gerentologists, in their research, have not already corrected for this, which they may have. Cheers, CP 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, you can also try to submit to Guinness the mistakes. And this could be another reason supporting if Guinness was not a reliable source: if they refuse to correct mistakes. Japan adopted the Gregorian calendary in 1873? Then use that as a source in the Shigechiyo Izumi article where his date of birth discrepancy is listed. If we can get sources like Guinness to correct their data, and other sources to follow, then we can change Wikipedia. Neal 06:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A point of interest, refer to Igor Alexandrovich Moiseyev who recently died on November 2, 2007, his date of birth was noted with both the Julian and the adjusted Gregorian dates. I don't know if this is a precedent, but it has been done. Regarding Kott, Graham and Fujisawa there really is no Gerentology research at hand, it is a simple matter of counting days- some having lived more leap years than others and thereby having outlived them as well. I don't feel the additional day should be discounted.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people&oldid=175629234"