Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of the verified oldest people

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bart Versieck (talk | contribs) at 22:29, 30 August 2007 (Important reaction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:29, 30 August 2007 by Bart Versieck (talk | contribs) (Important reaction)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Consensus to merge this article

I am requesting a consensus to decide whether to merge this article with oldest people or not. Note that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and that this is not a vote. Explain your reasoning, please. The question for consensus will end after five days if there is enough consensus.

Full marks for you. Extremely sexy 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment

Before we all like sheep run off a cliff supporting this merger, I must say I disagree and have several points to consider:

A. This article was originally started as a longer explication of the "Oldest People of All Time" list on the "Oldest People" page. Please note that the "Oldest People" article is NOT a list. It is a COLLECTION OF LISTS along with explanatory texts. Thus, we have:

--World's Oldest Person --Oldest Living Man

--Oldest of all Time (nearly all women) --Oldest Men of All Time --Nationality records

Further, there needs to be an explanation of methodologies, which is why a mere 'list' is not appropriate. Why aren't we including the longevity claims here? What does it take to qualify?

B. It seems the author started the "List of the oldest people" as a one-list, longer version of "Oldest of All Time". Note for sake of brevity and summary, the list on the "Oldest People" page only goes down to age 115 years 0 days. Clearly, we could use a longer version, perhaps a 'top 100' in a separate article. We could link the 'main article.' Note that 'main articles's are NOT an excuse for total deletion. Check out an article such as WWI, there is always a summary of the main article on the linking page.

Note that we already have a situation with a 'main article' for 'oldest by nationality' with a short, table-ized summary on the main page. This strategy would make sense, as it would allow the user looking for a quick answer to find it on the main page, and those interested in a little more detail can click on the extra link.

C. Since the data is less than 20% duplicative, I see no reason for a merger or a deletion.

D. However, should one advocate a merger, we need to discuss 'which way' the merger should go. Again, I prefer 'Oldest People' over 'List of the Oldest People' because it is not one list, and we have in-text explanations, so 'Oldest People' is more than a mere list. → R Young {łtalk} 00:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


→ R Young {łtalk} 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Here is an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Western_Front

The article gives a brief summary and a link to a longer article. We should use the same format here. The main article, "Oldest People," would be the only "Master" article, making it easier to find additional articles with longer lists.

Sincerely, Robert Young Senior Consultant for Gerontology Guinness World Records → R Young {łtalk} 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Again below, we see a short summary of 'gas warfare' with a link to "main article: poison gas." An additional article is never a reason to delete the first one, or to delete the summary on the first one.

Gas warfare

An artist's rendition of Canadian troops at the Second Battle of Ypres.Main article: Poison gas in World War I Despite the German plans to maintain the stalemate with the French and British, German commanders planned an offensive at the Belgian town of Ypres, which the British had captured in November 1914 during the First Battle of Ypres. This was in order to divert attention away from major offensives in the Eastern Front while disrupting Franco-British planning and to test a new weapon. After a two-day bombardment, on 22 April, the Germans released chlorine gas onto the battlefield which drifted into the British trenches. The green-yellow cloud asphyxiated the defenders and those in the rear fled in panic creating an undefended four-mile-wide gap in the Allied line. However, the Germans were unprepared for the level of their success and lacked sufficient reserves to exploit the opening. Canadian troops quickly arrived and drove back the German advance. This Second Battle of Ypres marked the first large-scale use of chemical weapons, where 170 tonnes were dropped on the allied lines, resulting in the deaths of 5,000 men within minutes, despite being prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1899.

The gas attack was repeated two days later and caused a three-mile withdrawal of the Franco-British line. But the opportunity had been lost. The success of this attack would not be repeated, as the Allies countered by introducing gas masks and other countermeasures. An example of the success of these measures came a year later, on 27 April, when 25 miles (40 km) to the south of Ypres, at the Battle of Hulluch, the 16th (Irish) Division's troops were able to withstand determined German gas attacks.


Sincerely Robert Young → R Young {łtalk} 00:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. My opinion is:
  • Rgarding the Oldest people article, merge section By nation of death or current residence into article National longevity recordholders. Maybe merge section Emigrant records into tha article to, but it is unlikely.
  • Merge sections Among the oldest ever, The oldest men ever, The oldest people currently living, and The oldest men currently living. (Living people on the listed can be Italic and Bold
  • The section Official oldest living person should be kept, but I'm not sure what to do with Official oldest living man section (To be fair would we have to put "offical oldest women section too? This would create to many lists).

Then after this, we would have three lists: A list to show how the title of "current oldest person" was passed, a National longevity recordholders which has its own article, and a list of the oldest people. Or, perhaps an article entitled List of supercentenarians since there is an article called List of centenarians.

I think it is better to have quick, table-ized answers all in one place. The extra articles are of lesser importance, but there for those who care for more detailed info. As I have shown with the WWI articles, it is always important to have a master, summative article with all the most-important information, with links to the smaller articles (i.e. individual battles). Most people know about WWI, but how many have heard of f.e. Chemin des Dames? Thus, to 'grow' the data must be organized from the most basic to the most detailed. We have it that way now, and it's been like this over a year. I see no need to change it. R Young {łtalk} 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Expand to Top 100

I'd like to see someone expand the list to a "Top 100".R Young {łtalk} 03:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay: I will do so, Robert. Extremely sexy 15:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be missing loads of people who have reached 113. If we are to include ALL people who have lived to 113, then the list should be 120+ people long, not about 100. See here, and here (half way down the page). Rrsmac 18:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, but I have to delete a lot of your additions, and swap them for other people who were older. Extremely sexy 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Elena Slough birthdate

Elena Slough's birthdate should be July 4, and her age four days older: July 8 was a newspaper reporting error. R Young {łtalk} 00:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you now found definite proof for this, since both you and Louis Epstein always stated "July 8th" instead of "July 4th", my dear friend? Extremely sexy 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

USA 53 of top 100 (or 55 of top 102)

I wonder if a 'top 100' is enough, or 113+? If we go too low, the list loses some effect...hmmm....R Young {łtalk} 03:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think 113+ should be the marker perhaps. It makes no sense at the moment with 102 in the list, and roughly 113 and a half as the minimum age. Either that, or cut it back. Rrsmac 14:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just brought it back to a literal top 100, but Kott isn't in Louis Epstein's list at all, and Chatmon was a year younger according to him: any comments on this from you, Robert? Extremely sexy 23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again, Bart. Kott is in Louis's list as '115'.

Also, Chatmon's age of 114 is based on the 1900 census, which I consider more reliable than the '1885' citation.R Young {łtalk} 05:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I like the 'top 100' idea because it will get increasingly harder to make it on the list. For example, Bertha Fry will now have to make it to '138' days past 113 to get on...but Florence Finch would have to make it to '142' days if Bertha makes it first....R Young {łtalk} 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd: I didn't find Kott at all last time I checked, but why "born in 1879" for him and "born in 1880" for you anyway? Extremely sexy 20:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Guinness said '1879' but the 1880 census lists her as 2 months old. Louis uses 1879 because he wants to wait until Guinness admits they made a mistake more than a decade ago.R Young {łtalk} 02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Which they will never do, since they still maintain Izumi's claimed (but probably fake) birth date of 1865 too. Extremely sexy 14:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Guinness told me they would retract the Izumi case if the government of Japan did so first...which isn't likely to happen. 72.152.100.171 09:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right in saying so, man. Extremely sexy 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"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 Misplaced Pages 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 {łtalk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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 {łtalk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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 {łtalk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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 {łtalk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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 {łtalk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 {łtalk} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
I agree. It should be removed. Anyone disagree? -|AMK152 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
I fully agree then. Extremely sexy 22:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

List of 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? twintwentyTwintwenty 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a mistake with her birthdate. Mrs Frank was born in 1881, not in 1880.

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.

However, tradition has it that tie goes to the one who got to the age first.R Young {łtalk} 05:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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 {łtalk} 14:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

No: #30, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 23:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Fannie Thomas

May be 10 days older. 113 years 283 days.Ryoung122 03:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Bettie Chatmon

In the list #50, Bettie Chatmon, is said to be female. Of corse it is not a typical male name but I think Bettie Chatmon was a man. See the photos # 19 and 20 here: http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2120186281 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.93.199 (talk • contribs)

I agree she apparently had a moustache at the very end of her long life, but she definitely was female, dear friend. Extremely sexy 11:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

FONT SIZE

Why does the text appear smaller?Ryoung122 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone make the FONT larger? This list makes the people look insignificant the way it is now.Ryoung122 04:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Gracia Borbon

Can someone confirm the dates for Gracia Medinaceli-Borbón (1788-1901), duchess of Dúrcal, wife of José Ramón Rodil y Campillo? Someone inserted her in the list. Thanks Zdtrlik 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

So presumably we should remove her from the list until her dates are validated? If no one disagrees I'll remove her tomorrow. Rrsmac 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I already did though. Extremely sexy 00:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Length Of The List

Why not include everyone (verified!) who has became, or has become, 110 and older? According to this Oldest people/highest age (in Dutch) page on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, everyone above the age of 110, can be called a "supercentenarian", which is a rare phenomenon; it is reached by only one out of every onehundred people who already reached the age of 100. An English page is also available: Oldest people, and for supercentenarians, see supercentenarian. --Robster1983 14:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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, Misplaced Pages, 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)

Next person in the list

Hi, who is the next person to enter the list, and when will it happen? Regards, 193.136.128.14 18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbella Ewing in 35 days, if she is still living by then. -AMK152 03:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Arbella Ewing is currently the 109th oldest verified person in history. -AMK152 03:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

What about "114 years and 206 days", Robert? Extremely sexy 11:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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 23:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, personally I would suggest to add commas everywhere
okay? Extremely sexy 11
46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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? Rrsmac 01:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Well: there are a few cases of oldest people "verified" by Guinness at the time, who were subsequently proven to be suspect, hence, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 14:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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, Misplaced Pages 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)

"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)

Extant or extant? :-) Carcharoth 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The term has been used by Guinness for decades. Also, consider the annual death rate at age 110 is about 50% and at age 114 is about 67%.Ryoung122 05:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"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)

# 92 on list

Is that just a really long name at #92 on the list, or are there 2 people's names in there? Cardsplayer4life 16:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No: that's her full name indeed though. Extremely sexy 23:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Aaah, cool. I wish I had that many names. Ok, not really. Cardsplayer4life 00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)