This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is there a reason there are multiple Wikilinks for each nation? For example, there are 50+ wikilinks to USA in this article. Are they necessary (for example autocounting)? Ryoung122 04:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting that there are lots of disputed peoples (lots of question marks) on such a list whose name is "list of the verified oldest people". I would remove all of them. Otherwise this puts the list to the category of joke.
Is Catherine Hagel dead, I heard she died yesterday. Is there any truth in this. -- Audrey Knight ( talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesnt matter, shes dead. My condolences. -- Audrey Knight ( talk) 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Please help us. we are from Poland very big database, not published.
for more information , please contakt Wolfgang on Wikipedia -Poland
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Wolfgang/brudnopis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.218 ( talk) 08:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
On January 20, 2009, not only will the next American president take office, but the person who has been in the top 100 the longest on this chart will be removed. (Or at least it's likely.) Star Garnet ( talk) 05:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You mean January 20, 2009? Delina Filkins?
By the way, I suggested making an addenda list that is equivalent to the number of disputed cases. Ryoung122 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, as per Robert's suggestion, we should somehow highlight the questionable cases, maybe simply by italicizing them. After all, on GRG, there are codes depicting the level of verification for various individuals, so we'd simply be applying a form of qualification for some cases which others have highlighted. I think we need also to, on this page, describe for each case which is in dispute the nature of the dispute. This can be a brief note like "Some suspect Izumi may have been 105 at death," and "Some suspect White may have been 102 at death." Canada Jack ( talk) 20:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
As most here have no doubt noticed, I took the liberty of adding an addendum of extra verified claims which bring the undisputed list of claims here to 100 individuals. I know that at least one member here was adamant against this list, but I feel it is justified for the following reasons: #1: None of the sources we generally use have a "Top 100" list per se, so the numbering we use here borders on original research; and #2: Various sources dispute or note dispute with some of these individuals, so if they were to have a numbered list, they may not include those questionable claims. The simplest thing therefore is to include with an addendum a number of unquestioned claims equal to the number of questioned claims.
I, however, count six claims, not the seven that the addendum now includes. Just to clarify, here are what I identified as the six disputed claims:
1: Shig Izumi (may be 105); 2: Carrie White (may be 102); 3: Kamato Hongo (I understand she may have been younger as some records are inconsistent, but how much younger? If only by a year it should be noted); 4: Anitica Butariu (uncertain as to what the dispute is - is this questioned because the authorities in Romania haven't revealed their criteria for acceptance?); 5: Mathew Beard (is this here because the main claim comes from US Social Security records?); 6: Moses Hardy (may have been 112). Accordingly, the list addendum should omit the seventh claim. Canada Jack ( talk) 18:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Some more comments: Mitsu Fujisawa could be a 7th case. I have reasons to doubt that one (but nothing has been published). Moses Hardy, if not 113, was at least 112 so that is the least disputable case. With Romania, that was a case that the GRG accepted early (Louis Epstein also accepted cases like Janina Izykowska of Poland, 116, since dropped). Although nothing has been published to dispute the Butariu claim, the articles from 1997 claimed that Dr. Victor Arsenie had the documents for this case, but we have not been able to find him. As for Mathew Beard, the SSA accepted the case but it was a questionable census match (they had a scoring system, with 4=very good match, 3=good match, 2=marginal match, 1=inconclusive, 0=not a match). Beard's case scored a 2...I personally suggested they not accept. Ironically, though, the Beard age claim was to 116 or so, so he could have been even older. Ryoung122 19:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty here to add footnotes for the disputed cases, and included a note about Robert's doubt on Fujisawa's claim. However, that may not pass muster in terms of wiki-style, so please correct if need by. Also, it seems Star Garnet was of a similar mind, though with a different solution and we tried to change the page simulateously. But I think that putting a table into the "notes" section is problematic and aesthetically clumsy. But that's my opinion. See if my solution (footnotes for the disputed claims) better addresses this or sufficiently addresses this. Canada Jack ( talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
See: 14-year-old U.S. woman to be world's oldest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.145.232 ( talk) 11:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The real purpose of these lists should be to show the demographics of longevity...the whole argument about age verification is that when the process is rigorous, then claims such as that of Thomas Parr are seen as nonsensical, impossible. Look how tight the data is, just days (and sometimes less) separate those outside the top 10. Ryoung122 15:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to call this case into question unless I find an article that explicitly says so. I do have doubts about this case, but not enough to put a ? mark by her name. For one, she enrolled in a university at 112 and took exercise classes at 112. However, finding the original news articles from 1988 will be difficult. Remember, I finally found the Izumi smoking gun but that took years. Ryoung122 10:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, right call. I shouldn't have put it in in the first place. Canada Jack ( talk) 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/11978
Mitsu Fujisawa apparently a fake
I'm currently reading the Japanese Wikipedia article on Seki Takewara
(January 11, 1878 - March 2, 1987). If I'm understanding it
correctly, the last paragraph states that Mitsu Fujisawa turned out
to be a fake, being born in 1890 instead of 1876. Here's how I
understand it:
According to the article, Fujisawa's family members had doubts about her true age, so in 1989 the Longevity Award Committee of Japan decided to investigate this. The investigation revealed that Fujisawa's real first name was Kosayo (born 1890), and that the original Mitsu Fujisawa died young and Kosayo was using her older sister's name and birthdate. In March 1989, Fujisawa's family petitioned the Ministry of Welfare to correct this error, but the Ministry couldn't find any credible evidence to support the petition. However, in April 1989, the Longevity Award Committee of Japan decided to posthumously give the "Japan's Oldest Person" title to Seki Takewara for the period of May 21, 1986 to March 2, 1987 (Which, BTW, would've meant that Japan had no supercentenarians from the death of Ine Tsugawa on May 21, 1986 until Waka Shirahama's 110th birthday on March 26, 1988!).
Can someone read the article and see whether my understanding/interpretation is accurate?
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%8E%9F%E3%82%BB%E3%82%AD
The issue was whether the original Japanese article or articles debunking this case can be located, not whether it is original research. Ryoung122 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the wikipedia article, nothing can be found on this on the web as far as I can find. I don't doubt the wikipedia article is correct, but I don't know where a source for it can be found. No "list-of-oldest japanese" contains Mitsu Fujisawa though. Yubiquitoyama ( talk) 20:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
nice article: telegraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.195 ( talk) 22:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7857591.stm
I don't know if you have come across this claim of 128 years old before, but it appears that officials discovered her when performing a sweep of birth certificates of people over 100 years old and living. Well worth watching that news article. RichyBoy ( talk) 08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
That's OK because I wasn't saying she was a verified person; I was merely drawing attention to the claim to start with in the unlikely event that it went overlooked by you guys that do all the work. I'm unaware of all of the related wiki pages and there is no reason why I should be, of course, now I know in the future I can put this onto a more relevant discussion page. RichyBoy ( talk) 19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
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) 23:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I just updated the table because I thought there was a mistake. According to this table, someone could have lived for more days than someone else, yet be ranked lower. Today, this was the case with Numbers 80 and 81 in the table (Mary Josephine Ray, and Luce Maced). I understand that the difference it due to leap years.
What I am questioning is why we count the misleading number of (years + days) instead of just days? Shouldn't we be listing the people in the order of oldest to youngest? If you have lived for a longer amount of time (in other words more days), should you not be considered "older"?
If there is interest in changing this, then the bot that updates this table needs to be changed. 137.82.175.12 ( talk) 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
In science, a digit is not "significant" if the result is less than the margin of error. Trying to 'correct' for leap day is simply missing the point. The point should be how close the data is aligned (which indicates a biological limit to human longevity) rather than whom ranks ahead of whom. Ryoung122 03:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm.. I understand that the margin of error may well be more than a day. But this is not a supporting argument for choosing (years + days) over (days). In fact, the most convincing argument your have proposed is that the day-count is original research and should therefore be removed altogether. I would certainly favour removing this column, because otherwise it is simply misleading (it's not how we rank them, and it reflects an amount of accuracy that isn't there). 137.82.175.12 ( talk) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the original research argument is the best one, but others continually argue that to count by days is more "scientific," which, I suppose, means they mean it is more accurate. Robert says it most succinctly when he said In science, a digit is not "significant" if the result is less than the margin of error. AS for going ahead and removing the days column, there might be some resistance to that as I doubt there would be consensus here to do so. Canada Jack ( talk) 19:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the consensus is in favour of removal of the Age in Days column (overwhelmingly, if not unanimously!). So I will. DerbyCountyinNZ 08:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1164503/Is-woman-really-old-LIGHT-BULB-Oldest-person-world-set-celebrate-130th-birthday.html Seems legit; census info, birth cert. and all. Is this source correct? Recent article...Figured I'd ask you guys first.-- Lvivske ( talk) 07:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This has really been making the rounds in the news lately.
http://www.javno.com/en-world/114-year-old-nigerian-arrested-with-marijuana_244895
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n325/a03.html
Probably a false claim. Over there when anybody gets over about 90 their ages start to get blurred and exaggerated, i.e. the "village elder"/"wise old man" syndrome. Thoughts? --
75.170.40.194 (
talk) 04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2009/03/26/news/community/4aaa04_pearson.txt
Might not be big news but there must be a table somewhere on the site she could be added to. Where? Also, there needs to be some consolidation of supercentenarian-related articles on here. I mean, hell, does "Supercentenarian" and "Supercentenarian tracking" really need to be two different articles? --
75.170.40.194 (
talk) 04:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Is there any reason why the table in this article is not sortable? I would like to make it a sortable table ... but I would also like to first solicit if there is any valid reason why it is not currently sortable. Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 07:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
I am not a frequent editor for this specific page, and thus I am unfamiliar with some basic concepts about this list. I have some questions. If anyone can shed any light, I would appreciate that. Thanks in advance. (Question 1): Everyone would likely agree that age listed as "age in days" is more accurate than age listed as "age in years and days" ... since all "years" are not created equal (i.e., a leap year equates to 366 days, but a non-leap year equates to 365 days). Furthermore, the whole "point" of these lists is to rank people by oldest-to-youngest age. I also understand that we at Wikipedia simply report what the major "sources" (GRG, etc.) come up with. My question, then, is this. Why on earth would those major sources ignore such an important concept as "age in days" when the entire point of their work is to rank people by age? I am very confused by that. If getting the ages and the list rankings accurate is important to them, why do they live under the fictional notion that a leap year of 366 days is "equal to" a non-leap year of 365 days? Clearly, a person who is 366 days old is "older" than a person who is 365 days old (even if only by one day). Why do the major sources ignore this vital concept? I cannot understand that at all. Why would these organizations (whose main goal is to rank ages accurately) deliberately employ an inaccurate (or, less accurate) method of counting age? If anyone can shed light on this strange convention, I'd appreciate that. Thank you. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
In fact, some of the sources do reckon by day-count, but they list the ages by year/day count as that is how people generally understand ages. Saying someone has lived 40,000 days will likely elite a blank stare from most people, for example.
But a better reason is the fallacy that day counts are somehow "more accurate" than year/day counts. While it certainly is true that, owing to leap years, ages may be out by a day, this is only a concern if the level of accuracy itself is less than a day. But it isn't. The level of accuracy when we go by birthdate/deathdate is in fact close to 48 hours. Babies who are born before midnight but die 20 minutes later are not really "older" than babies born in the early hours of one day but who die later that evening. But by the way we reckon daycounts, we'd rank the 20-minute baby as "older." In other words, someone who seemingly is "older" by day count by a single day might in fact be younger than someone seemingly day younger, when one considers the time of day born.
And, as Robert Young points out, obsessing over who is older by a day or so misses the grander picture of where the range of people at this age are, which is the more important thing. The fact that, say, a mere handful of people had lived to be 113 by 1980 and now we have something like 150 is the more pertinent "scientific" interest here, not who among two people is "really" older when their year/day count matches but one has an extra day by day count. Canada Jack ( talk) 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not a frequent editor for this specific page, and thus I am unfamiliar with some basic concepts about this list. I have some questions. If anyone can shed any light, I would appreciate that. Thanks in advance. (Question 2): We at Wikipedia only report what outside sources report ... and we do not report any "original research". Do these outside sources (such as GRG, etc.) actually change these age rankings on a day-by-day basis? How does this occur? Do they have a website that they continually update every single day? Thank you. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
I am not a frequent editor for this specific page, and thus I am unfamiliar with some basic concepts about this list. I have some questions. If anyone can shed any light, I would appreciate that. Thanks in advance. (Question 3): In this list, Note #7 states: "The day count for Martha Graham is an estimate as her month of birth is known but not her date of birth." Apparently, it is verified that Martha Graham was born in December 1844 ... but the actual specific and exact date within that month is unknown. Thus, her age is an estimate. Does anyone have any idea as to how her age was "estimated"? Did some source (e.g., GRG) just pick a random date like, say, December 17, 1844 ... and then just "go with it"? If these sources did pick some fictional birth-date ... can we find out what they used? And shouldn't the article list this "estimated" birth-date as well? Thank you. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
Her case is controversial in the sense that, according to Robert Young, her claim could not be verified under current rules because the earliest known document for her is more than 20 years after the event. (The 1900 census states her month and year of birth when she was, I think, a 55-year-old.) As to the estimate, because the "verification" came from the census, and that census only listed month of birth and not date of birth, she therefore lived about 180 days beyond her birthday. Robert notes that frequently, people would list their date of birth as "January 1" or "December 25" if they didn't know it. And if a specific date was not known, the gerontology people would assign a nominal birthdate, though you'd have to ask Robert how often that was done... Canada Jack ( talk) 16:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Another editor has pointed out to me that the dates in this article should be formatted as, for example, 26 June 1876 ... as opposed to June 26, 1876. This editor's reasoning is: "This is an international page, international date system (d-m-y) not American system (m-d-y) applies". This editor also states: "[Using the American system is a] contravention of WP:MOSDATE#Strong national ties to a topic". I looked up that particular Wikipedia policy. It seems to me that using a m-d-y format such as June 26, 1876, is not necessarily an American style. I assume that that style is used in many other parts of the globe, as well. Also, the Wikipedia policy cited states:
Retaining the existing format
I checked back to the initial creation of this article page (from March 8, 2007). At that time -- and ever since -- the article has been formatted with dates in the m-d-y format. So ... rather than engage in edit warring and reverting back-and-forth, I have come to this Talk Page to seek consensus on this issue. Are there any thoughts on this matter? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC))
Here in Australia we use the day/month/year format. I do get confused when I see say 7/6/2005 for example as for me it means 7th June whereas in the American format it means 6th July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.33.91 ( talk) 19:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
"Strong national ties to a topic Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently. In certain subject areas the customary format may differ from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military often use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field."
This is fairly clear that m/d/y is used ONLY in the US and perhaps Canada. This page was (unfortunately) started with that format when, as an international ratyher than US-centric page it should have been d/m/y. On 15 April an anonymous user (edit: ooops, I think this was actually me but on checking the IP it gives the location as China, not one of the IPs I use. I vaguely recall have changed the dates on an article but couldn't remember if it was this one. Sincere apologies. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)) went to the trouble of reformatting the page to d/m/y. Strictly speaking this contravened this section in WP:MOSDATE: "Retaining the existing format If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor"."
However I would suggest that given the international nature of this article that there are insufficient reasons for reverting to m/d/y format, Particularly as no-one else has raised any concerns in the 7 weeks or so since the change was made. DerbyCountyinNZ 07:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Who is she, all of a sudden? I can't find her in the GRG list... Please, someone explain it to me! 87.160.168.202 ( talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody know why Tomoji Tanabe has been removed from the GRG's List of Recent Deaths for 2009? TFBCT1 ( talk) 17:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems very odd to me that the case of Izumi is included in this table when it is at best unverifiable, but it is still recognized by G. World Records. Carrie White however is listed flat out as a FALSE claim on GRG's website. Is she still recognized by Guiness?, if not perhaps she can be removed. It irritates me Guiness seems to want to continue to recognize obvious frauds do to unwilligness to admit a mistake.
GRG has Izumu listed as dispute, White listed as FALSE, and no info on Hongo. Basically was just wondering if anyone (maybe RYoung) could shed some light on any of this and give justification for why these people are stil included on the table, and also the full reasoning for why their ages probably false. Hongo's wiki doesnt even list WHY her supposed age is disputed, that could be important information, no? Lolwikiments ( talk) 05:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Puerto Rico isn't a country; it's a territory. My edit was reverted without discussion or explanation in the edit summary, so I'd like to hear people's opinions here. -- Edge3 ( talk) 02:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've checked with RobertYoung re Matthew Beard appearing to be no longer disputed in the GRG list and this is his respone: "No, this case is still disputed, and that status likely won't change. If a new GRG table inadvertently didn't have italics, that was unintentional.Ryoung122 03:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)". Should we wait for the GRG list to be corrected or just go ahead and revert? {Copied to Talk:Oldest people and Talk:List of the verified oldest men} Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 04:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a new "top 200" list on the GRG page that includes at least one new top-100 listee now listed here yet.
131.96.91.251 (
talk) 03:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
...that almost all of the oldest people in world history died in the late 20th century - 2009? Only one person from this list ( Martha Graham)died before 1980's and it was in 1959. So before 1959 nobody could reach the age of 113, and only in 1980's people suddenly began to live that long? 77.127.118.39 ( talk) 21:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know why this title is "List of the verified oldest people" ... as opposed to "List of the 100 verified oldest people". If we use the former, then the title essentially implies a full list of all of the verified oldest people. If we use the latter, then we are explicitly limiting the list to the top 100. Am I missing something here? Also ... if (for whatever reason) we continue to use the current title, wouldn't it be more proper to say "List of verified oldest people" ... removing the word "the"? I am no linguistics expert, but use of the word "the" in this title does not seem correct. It seems awkward, inappropriate, and grammatically incorrect ... no? Any feedback? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 19:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
Harsh Baat Kijiye(Talk) 13:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
wheres the addendum ,why was it removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.146.105 ( talk) 16:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thank you, i guess there is some good in you after all. 74.249.149.254 ( talk) 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The page currently says "rank disputed" in terms of Butariu. However, this seems to be out of the question on whether her date of birth is as per the Gregorian calendar or the Julian calendar. I have yet to see any source which has raised this issue, it is therefore Original Research. I propose we remove the Gregorian/Julian calendar "issue" from the notes, as no source has raised it as an issue, unless someone can find a source. And I propose we change the "dispute" note to one saying something like "verified by Romanian authorities, but not by international authorities". Canada Jack ( talk) 17:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see any note from the sources regarding a potential issue with the conversions between calendars. I'll give you till Friday to find something we can source, Alan, after which time this Original Research will be removed. Canada Jack ( talk) 14:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Uh, Alan, have I removed anything from the main page? And have I not initiated discussion? The entry as it stands is original research if there is no source "disputing the rank" or questioning whether Romanian authorities know the difference between the various calendars. It matters not one whit if the argument to have the entry is airtight and perfect, nor if others believe it should also be there, if no outside source is making that precise argument. It still is original research, and therefore should be removed. If you have some argument why this is NOT OR, then let's hear it. Canada Jack ( talk) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
For the record, here is what Epstein has: "Anicuta Batariu...June 17,1882-November 21,1997 [Certification apparently only by Romanian authorities]." GRG has the same dates with similar and identical notes: "Batariu was accepted by Romanian authorities," and "Certification apparently only by Romanian authorities," but no reference to a potential date discrepancy. In all instances, an identical birth date is noted for Batariu, with no "?" after the birthdate, no note on Romania being on a different calendar when she was born, nothing but the "Romanian authorities" note. This is, therefore, Original Research, however justified the point being made. Canada Jack ( talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Alan, I've read the archives. the issue was discussed, and similar points were raised. It went for comment, but the comments were focused on the day-count issue, not on the Gregorian calendar issue. So the issue in terms of Batariu/Butariu (do we have the correct spelling here, btw?) was never "resolved."
Since that time, the day-count issue has been resolved, we no longer list ages by days. Since that time, the "Gregorian" issue in terms of Izumi was raised - by me - and we got subsequent agreement to remove the note, when it became clear that you had raised an issue on calendar usage which was completely irrelevant to the Japanese situation. The Izumi issue, incidentally, was raised at the time and not changed until I brought it up again and dealt with it.
Now, we can finally move to remove the final note, as - and this was raised before - the note constitutes Original Research as no source I have found raises this issue at all. You are hereby invited to find a reference which makes the same point of a possible miscalculation of Batariu's birthdate.
However, given your tone in the past I don't believe any reasoning will convince - so let me say this. If any single account person agrees with you - I will make the change. (It is not such a big deal).
The only person with a "tone" problem is you, Alan. The last time, I pointed out the error of the Izumi date "correction," spelled out how the specific days mentioned as a possible error would not apply as Japan was never on the Gregorian calendar, nor on any similar western-style calendar where a date confusion could arise. And every other editor agreed with my analysis. Instead of swallowing your pride and acknowledging the error, you strung out the debate, pretending that it was still an issue whatever calendar they had previously used (without ever telling us where the specific number of days difference arose from), pretended you didn't author the note (which, I found, in fact you had, save for some minor word changes that did not affect the over-all point) and then suggested your main concern was that the proper process was respected, as if the presence of erroneous material was beside the point.
But, I don't believe we are actually in disagreement. The note states accurately "The sources do not indicate ..." the possible discrepancy in dates. The problem with that logic is we could potentially think of any number of "discrepancies" which the sources do not indicate were accounted for. Like, the "sources do not indicate whether the person reading the record was experienced in differentiating European cursive numbers, where a '1' could be misread as a '7.' " Or, whether, using your Gregorian example, whether a person of the Orthodox faith stated an Orthodox date for the birth of their child who was born in a country using the Gregorian calendar. I personally know people here in Toronto, Serbs, for example, who follow the Orthodox dates. Can we be certain they reported a Gregorian date for the birth of their child?
In the end, we should raise points raised by reputable, published sources. Since GRG and Epstein both chose only to mention that Romanian authorities verified the dates, and made no mention of any other potential issue, then neither should we, as that is OR. If you wish to wait until someone else agrees with me, so be it. But that doesn't change the fact that this is OR. Canada Jack ( talk) 01:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
If there is, as you say above, a source for the specific claim that Batariu's birthdate may by mistated by 13 days owing to confusion over calendars, then I recommend you locate that source, and then we can reinstate the note. Otherwise, as I have established (with not a single editor disputing my specific contentions), this is Original Research. Canada Jack ( talk) 00:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I changed the background color of the disputed items, I'm slightly colorblind, and they seemed too close in color to me. If there are any objections to the new color, please state so here, and we can try to find a color that is suitable and contrasts with the green for the living persons. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 04:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why was ranking removed? Also why was Lucy d'Abreu added? I thought it was agreed that although Martha Graham was footnoted, she would not be considered an unproven case, and hence only a need for "six" in the addendum. Please explain. TFBCT1 ( talk) 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not a matter of questioning the source, it's a matter of whether we should declare a case "disputed" when all we have is a name in italics. We need more than that. Canada Jack ( talk) 01:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I found the White citation and put it back. As for the case in question, it seems a bit lame to me to simply say "GRG indicates this is a questionable case," without saying why it is a questionable case, as we have done for all the others. However, I will concede that this is sufficient, even without a description of the nature of the dispute. To be consistent, we should insert a note that GRG calls it questionable. Canada Jack ( talk) 14:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for not checking the previous archives, but as a rookie contributor who rarely uses the discussion section, I wanted to know why Besse Cooper and Walter Breuning are in the Addendum section when they are "validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group". Never mind me, doofus mistake on my part, they have not even reached top 100 yet. However, Besse Cooper are only 4 days away from entering the top 100? Would she be automatically placed on the top 100 or remain in the Addendum section?
Also, I think my confusion comes from the first sentence after the word "Addendum" saying: "Several claims are disputed; accordingly, an addendum of proven claims is included." Then, immediately afterwards, the table showing #101-#107 oldest is displayed. It implies that everyone currently listed are disputed. CalvinTy ( talk) 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
I'd like a consensus as to whether we should remove Martha Graham (and other incomplete cases) from these lists. I should note that Robert Young from GRG has recommended that we not include incomplete cases on the lists and, in fact, Martha Graham is no longer listed on GRG's top 200 oldest list.
I'd also like a vote as to whether we should go with the 1894 birthdate for Moses Hardy (as is now listed on Epstein's page)
I support making both of the above changes. Tim198 ( talk) 13:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
A week has now passed, and since no else has responded I'm going to make the changed I suggested Tim198 ( talk) 10:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
verb (used with object)
to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.
By changing his official birthdate to 1894 Louis is debunking the claim. He's exposing the claim of birth to 1893 as being exaggerated. Why should we go with GRG over Epstein and not vice versa? Again, as I stated in another section above with two of the three earliest records supporting an 1894 birth it makes more sense to go with 1894 over 1893. Derby, you need to provide evidence on why you believe we should stick with 1893. Just saying because GRG said so doesn't cut it my view. Tim198 ( talk) 11:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the rule of thumb should be to list the possible older age, if there is evidence to suggest that age might be accurate. Otherwise, the person disappears from the list and one is unaware of a possible bona fide claimant. Canada Jack ( talk) 14:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Today I worked on the table and added the chinese martial arts master Lu Zijian on the 7-th place. Currently he is 116 years old and 176 days. He was born on the 15 October 1893. So my question is why that information was removed by someone when there are solid facts about his age? Also why, if he is not the oldest living man on the planet right now (I posted this information in the first section), his information was removed in the table? I expect answer or I'll continue to edit this table in the name of solid truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.134.62.50 ( talk) 21:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
He is to be found on the "recent claims" section of Longevity claims. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not pointing fingers, but the first paragraph clearly states:
"A supercentenarian is considered verified if his or her claim has been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group."
However, Anitica Butariu's footnote states:
"Aniţica Butariu's claim was accepted by Romanian authorities, but supporting documentation for the claim has never been produced for inspection by international gerontology organizations. However, nothing has been published to dispute the claim."
So which one is it? We need to decide whether or not Butariu really ought to be on this list. These are two conflicting pieces of info about the validation by international gerontology organisations. Should we rephrase Butariu's footnote or remove her altogether? I don't claim to know a lot about her case, so I'd appreciate the help of you guys. Brendanology ContriB 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
And yes, I'm also wondering why Butariu is still on the GRG's lists. Even Epstein concedes that her "certification (is) apparently only by Romanian authorities". If we include her here, we might as well also include Maria Olivia da Silva as she has been "validated" exclusively by Brazilian authorities. I don't know what she's even doing on this list if the GRG hasn't actually seen her documents. Given that the oldest living Romanian right now is a woman who celebrated her 106th birthday yesterday, I personally find Butariu's claim to 115 very suspicious. This issue is definitely worth discussing some more. -- Brendanology ContriB 12:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Martha Graham should be removed from this list. We don't know exactly when she was born and I think in order to be included on this list each case must have an exact birth and death date. (I also understand that this is the reason she is no longer on the GRG lists)
In regards to Moses Hardy, I noticed that Louis Epstein changed his birthdate to 1894 recently on his list. GRG on the other hand is still sticking with the 1893 birthdate. So now we have two reliable sources saying two different things. I would recommend that we go with the 1894 birthdate because when a case is doubted such as this researchers usually go with the more conservative birthday. (Maggie Barnes, for example could have been either 115, 116, or 117 at death but researchers decided to go with the more conservative estimate of 115). Tim198 ( talk) 13:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Has Epstein specifically "debunked" Hardy? Or has he merely chosen to accept the younger age? This makes a difference as to how he should be treated for this article if the GRG still uses the older age. In any case, I think there should be consensus before any changes are made.DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
de·bunk (d-bngk) tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.
If someone claims to be 114 but turns out to be only 92 (and their mother, if still living, would be only 113), then it's appropriate to use the term "debunked." When a case is only off by one year and there are multiple documents on both points, that is something else.
If Louis had "debunked" Moses Hardy, then why is he on Louis's "validated" list? Louis goes with "1894" but also notes 1893:
Moses Hardy 112 335 January 6,1894 December 7,2006 [some records say born 1893]
While this isn't the place for original research, the original claim to 1893 was backed up by an ID card, 1930 census, and 1910 census match (which qualified, under the 20-year-rule, as proxy proof of birth). Thus, the case was accepted by both Guinness and the GRG. Later, his WWI draft registration and the 1900 census emerged (which I found) listing him as born in 1894. That makes this case problematic, as both dates have some support. In reality, quite a few cases are problematic. Due to Wiki-pedi-holic-ism, some people are so obsessed that they forget the rule for significant digits. Mr. Hardy's social security record listed 1893 (and a second account listed 1892) and the 1920 census supported an even older age (1891). Ryoung122 22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the real issue here is one of consistency. As I mentioned above, I liken the Hardy case to the Maggie Barnes case. Maggie Barnes could have been 116 (based on the 1900 census record) or 115 (based on family bible record). GRG chose to go the conservative route (as they seem to do with all cases that have conflicting evidence) and validated her at age 115. But with Moses Hardy you did the exact opposite and continue to go with 113 versus 112. Also, with the 1900 census being the record closest to Hardy's birth it's more likely to be correct. Based on these facts, I see little reason not to change his age at this point. Tim198 ( talk) 13:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
As for Martha Graham: there should at least be a footnote, as she is included in Louis's lists and was once in the Guinness Book (mid-1980s). I don't list her because there isn't an exact date of birth, and the "proof of age" is the 1900 census (which lists her was born Dec 1844), which is far outside the birth event. Ryoung122 05:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree about Moses Hardy. He is not confirmed to be 113, he may only be 112, but Martha Graham is for sure 114. She may be a few days younger or older than what is said but she should be on the list. We know she is supposed to be one of the top 100 oldest people. So why was she removed? Jdisnard
Re Martha Graham: If Beatrice Farve with even the birth month not known for sure is on the list, Martha Graham should be too. -- Leob ( talk) 06:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Should we extend this list (and the two related lists) to 125 people? jc iindyysgvxc ( my contributions) 02:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest not to limit the list by a number of people but rather by some age. On a long term one might get a kind of exponential distribution of the cases with a random cut-off (in this case 100). Many interesting features of the distribution might get lost and many interesting cases might also get lost. To give an example: The number of male people on the list will decrease dramatically in the future.I would suggest to set the cut off to 113 years or even lower, but not below 110. A way to avoid the mentioned complications and to maintain the list as it is, one might set up another list with a cut off of 113 or lower on which all the cases above a certain age are kept.
79.216.173.61 (
talk) 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is entitled 'verified' and then goes on to list a number of 'disputed' claimants. So which is it? Are the disputed names verified or not? If verified then they need to be listed as such and not as disputed. If they are indeed disputed then they need to be removed from the list - because they are not verified. The article should lose the 'verified' bit or the list should lose those people who have not in fact been 'verified'. As it stands the article is misleading. Wembwandt ( talk) 18:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This list currently jumps from 42 to 44 skipping 43. And no there is no tie for position number 42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.36.14 ( talk) 21:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
This article in the past has, when 2 or more people tie for 100 left them in. This means that the article will temporally have 101 persons until someone bumps them off. I think its fine and a lot better than only having 99 people on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.36.14 ( talk) 21:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Isn't this list very obviously skewed? Fifty ones of the names on it belong to US citizens. This cannot be because birth certificates or other documentation authenticating longevity claims are less available in other countries. Or can it? It seems rather more plausible that the majority of the Gerontology Research Group members are from the US themselves, and thus US claims are easier to verify. If this is the case, very few analytical conclusions may be drawn from the list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.170.14 ( talk) 06:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes... And this is relevant because??? Even so, it is still a fact that it is easier to verify Americans because there is more available data. There are simply not very many countries with sufficient census data from more than 100 years ago, and the US, while far from having the best census data, is definitely the biggest country with easily available such data. Even if the relevant data could be found in quite a few countries, in one as big as the US, it would involve traveling around quite substantially to rural country churches with ancient books of births and deaths. And of course, in many countries, not even such data is available. When brazilian census data is available on the web, there will be more brazilian SC:s, completely regardless of where the correspondents are based... Yubiquitoyama ( talk) 11:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is there a reason there are multiple Wikilinks for each nation? For example, there are 50+ wikilinks to USA in this article. Are they necessary (for example autocounting)? Ryoung122 04:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting that there are lots of disputed peoples (lots of question marks) on such a list whose name is "list of the verified oldest people". I would remove all of them. Otherwise this puts the list to the category of joke.
Is Catherine Hagel dead, I heard she died yesterday. Is there any truth in this. -- Audrey Knight ( talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesnt matter, shes dead. My condolences. -- Audrey Knight ( talk) 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Please help us. we are from Poland very big database, not published.
for more information , please contakt Wolfgang on Wikipedia -Poland
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Wolfgang/brudnopis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.218 ( talk) 08:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
On January 20, 2009, not only will the next American president take office, but the person who has been in the top 100 the longest on this chart will be removed. (Or at least it's likely.) Star Garnet ( talk) 05:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You mean January 20, 2009? Delina Filkins?
By the way, I suggested making an addenda list that is equivalent to the number of disputed cases. Ryoung122 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, as per Robert's suggestion, we should somehow highlight the questionable cases, maybe simply by italicizing them. After all, on GRG, there are codes depicting the level of verification for various individuals, so we'd simply be applying a form of qualification for some cases which others have highlighted. I think we need also to, on this page, describe for each case which is in dispute the nature of the dispute. This can be a brief note like "Some suspect Izumi may have been 105 at death," and "Some suspect White may have been 102 at death." Canada Jack ( talk) 20:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
As most here have no doubt noticed, I took the liberty of adding an addendum of extra verified claims which bring the undisputed list of claims here to 100 individuals. I know that at least one member here was adamant against this list, but I feel it is justified for the following reasons: #1: None of the sources we generally use have a "Top 100" list per se, so the numbering we use here borders on original research; and #2: Various sources dispute or note dispute with some of these individuals, so if they were to have a numbered list, they may not include those questionable claims. The simplest thing therefore is to include with an addendum a number of unquestioned claims equal to the number of questioned claims.
I, however, count six claims, not the seven that the addendum now includes. Just to clarify, here are what I identified as the six disputed claims:
1: Shig Izumi (may be 105); 2: Carrie White (may be 102); 3: Kamato Hongo (I understand she may have been younger as some records are inconsistent, but how much younger? If only by a year it should be noted); 4: Anitica Butariu (uncertain as to what the dispute is - is this questioned because the authorities in Romania haven't revealed their criteria for acceptance?); 5: Mathew Beard (is this here because the main claim comes from US Social Security records?); 6: Moses Hardy (may have been 112). Accordingly, the list addendum should omit the seventh claim. Canada Jack ( talk) 18:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Some more comments: Mitsu Fujisawa could be a 7th case. I have reasons to doubt that one (but nothing has been published). Moses Hardy, if not 113, was at least 112 so that is the least disputable case. With Romania, that was a case that the GRG accepted early (Louis Epstein also accepted cases like Janina Izykowska of Poland, 116, since dropped). Although nothing has been published to dispute the Butariu claim, the articles from 1997 claimed that Dr. Victor Arsenie had the documents for this case, but we have not been able to find him. As for Mathew Beard, the SSA accepted the case but it was a questionable census match (they had a scoring system, with 4=very good match, 3=good match, 2=marginal match, 1=inconclusive, 0=not a match). Beard's case scored a 2...I personally suggested they not accept. Ironically, though, the Beard age claim was to 116 or so, so he could have been even older. Ryoung122 19:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty here to add footnotes for the disputed cases, and included a note about Robert's doubt on Fujisawa's claim. However, that may not pass muster in terms of wiki-style, so please correct if need by. Also, it seems Star Garnet was of a similar mind, though with a different solution and we tried to change the page simulateously. But I think that putting a table into the "notes" section is problematic and aesthetically clumsy. But that's my opinion. See if my solution (footnotes for the disputed claims) better addresses this or sufficiently addresses this. Canada Jack ( talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
See: 14-year-old U.S. woman to be world's oldest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.145.232 ( talk) 11:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The real purpose of these lists should be to show the demographics of longevity...the whole argument about age verification is that when the process is rigorous, then claims such as that of Thomas Parr are seen as nonsensical, impossible. Look how tight the data is, just days (and sometimes less) separate those outside the top 10. Ryoung122 15:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to call this case into question unless I find an article that explicitly says so. I do have doubts about this case, but not enough to put a ? mark by her name. For one, she enrolled in a university at 112 and took exercise classes at 112. However, finding the original news articles from 1988 will be difficult. Remember, I finally found the Izumi smoking gun but that took years. Ryoung122 10:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, right call. I shouldn't have put it in in the first place. Canada Jack ( talk) 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/11978
Mitsu Fujisawa apparently a fake
I'm currently reading the Japanese Wikipedia article on Seki Takewara
(January 11, 1878 - March 2, 1987). If I'm understanding it
correctly, the last paragraph states that Mitsu Fujisawa turned out
to be a fake, being born in 1890 instead of 1876. Here's how I
understand it:
According to the article, Fujisawa's family members had doubts about her true age, so in 1989 the Longevity Award Committee of Japan decided to investigate this. The investigation revealed that Fujisawa's real first name was Kosayo (born 1890), and that the original Mitsu Fujisawa died young and Kosayo was using her older sister's name and birthdate. In March 1989, Fujisawa's family petitioned the Ministry of Welfare to correct this error, but the Ministry couldn't find any credible evidence to support the petition. However, in April 1989, the Longevity Award Committee of Japan decided to posthumously give the "Japan's Oldest Person" title to Seki Takewara for the period of May 21, 1986 to March 2, 1987 (Which, BTW, would've meant that Japan had no supercentenarians from the death of Ine Tsugawa on May 21, 1986 until Waka Shirahama's 110th birthday on March 26, 1988!).
Can someone read the article and see whether my understanding/interpretation is accurate?
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%8E%9F%E3%82%BB%E3%82%AD
The issue was whether the original Japanese article or articles debunking this case can be located, not whether it is original research. Ryoung122 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the wikipedia article, nothing can be found on this on the web as far as I can find. I don't doubt the wikipedia article is correct, but I don't know where a source for it can be found. No "list-of-oldest japanese" contains Mitsu Fujisawa though. Yubiquitoyama ( talk) 20:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
nice article: telegraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.195 ( talk) 22:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7857591.stm
I don't know if you have come across this claim of 128 years old before, but it appears that officials discovered her when performing a sweep of birth certificates of people over 100 years old and living. Well worth watching that news article. RichyBoy ( talk) 08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
That's OK because I wasn't saying she was a verified person; I was merely drawing attention to the claim to start with in the unlikely event that it went overlooked by you guys that do all the work. I'm unaware of all of the related wiki pages and there is no reason why I should be, of course, now I know in the future I can put this onto a more relevant discussion page. RichyBoy ( talk) 19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
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) 23:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I just updated the table because I thought there was a mistake. According to this table, someone could have lived for more days than someone else, yet be ranked lower. Today, this was the case with Numbers 80 and 81 in the table (Mary Josephine Ray, and Luce Maced). I understand that the difference it due to leap years.
What I am questioning is why we count the misleading number of (years + days) instead of just days? Shouldn't we be listing the people in the order of oldest to youngest? If you have lived for a longer amount of time (in other words more days), should you not be considered "older"?
If there is interest in changing this, then the bot that updates this table needs to be changed. 137.82.175.12 ( talk) 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
In science, a digit is not "significant" if the result is less than the margin of error. Trying to 'correct' for leap day is simply missing the point. The point should be how close the data is aligned (which indicates a biological limit to human longevity) rather than whom ranks ahead of whom. Ryoung122 03:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm.. I understand that the margin of error may well be more than a day. But this is not a supporting argument for choosing (years + days) over (days). In fact, the most convincing argument your have proposed is that the day-count is original research and should therefore be removed altogether. I would certainly favour removing this column, because otherwise it is simply misleading (it's not how we rank them, and it reflects an amount of accuracy that isn't there). 137.82.175.12 ( talk) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the original research argument is the best one, but others continually argue that to count by days is more "scientific," which, I suppose, means they mean it is more accurate. Robert says it most succinctly when he said In science, a digit is not "significant" if the result is less than the margin of error. AS for going ahead and removing the days column, there might be some resistance to that as I doubt there would be consensus here to do so. Canada Jack ( talk) 19:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the consensus is in favour of removal of the Age in Days column (overwhelmingly, if not unanimously!). So I will. DerbyCountyinNZ 08:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1164503/Is-woman-really-old-LIGHT-BULB-Oldest-person-world-set-celebrate-130th-birthday.html Seems legit; census info, birth cert. and all. Is this source correct? Recent article...Figured I'd ask you guys first.-- Lvivske ( talk) 07:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This has really been making the rounds in the news lately.
http://www.javno.com/en-world/114-year-old-nigerian-arrested-with-marijuana_244895
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n325/a03.html
Probably a false claim. Over there when anybody gets over about 90 their ages start to get blurred and exaggerated, i.e. the "village elder"/"wise old man" syndrome. Thoughts? --
75.170.40.194 (
talk) 04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2009/03/26/news/community/4aaa04_pearson.txt
Might not be big news but there must be a table somewhere on the site she could be added to. Where? Also, there needs to be some consolidation of supercentenarian-related articles on here. I mean, hell, does "Supercentenarian" and "Supercentenarian tracking" really need to be two different articles? --
75.170.40.194 (
talk) 04:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Is there any reason why the table in this article is not sortable? I would like to make it a sortable table ... but I would also like to first solicit if there is any valid reason why it is not currently sortable. Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 07:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
I am not a frequent editor for this specific page, and thus I am unfamiliar with some basic concepts about this list. I have some questions. If anyone can shed any light, I would appreciate that. Thanks in advance. (Question 1): Everyone would likely agree that age listed as "age in days" is more accurate than age listed as "age in years and days" ... since all "years" are not created equal (i.e., a leap year equates to 366 days, but a non-leap year equates to 365 days). Furthermore, the whole "point" of these lists is to rank people by oldest-to-youngest age. I also understand that we at Wikipedia simply report what the major "sources" (GRG, etc.) come up with. My question, then, is this. Why on earth would those major sources ignore such an important concept as "age in days" when the entire point of their work is to rank people by age? I am very confused by that. If getting the ages and the list rankings accurate is important to them, why do they live under the fictional notion that a leap year of 366 days is "equal to" a non-leap year of 365 days? Clearly, a person who is 366 days old is "older" than a person who is 365 days old (even if only by one day). Why do the major sources ignore this vital concept? I cannot understand that at all. Why would these organizations (whose main goal is to rank ages accurately) deliberately employ an inaccurate (or, less accurate) method of counting age? If anyone can shed light on this strange convention, I'd appreciate that. Thank you. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
In fact, some of the sources do reckon by day-count, but they list the ages by year/day count as that is how people generally understand ages. Saying someone has lived 40,000 days will likely elite a blank stare from most people, for example.
But a better reason is the fallacy that day counts are somehow "more accurate" than year/day counts. While it certainly is true that, owing to leap years, ages may be out by a day, this is only a concern if the level of accuracy itself is less than a day. But it isn't. The level of accuracy when we go by birthdate/deathdate is in fact close to 48 hours. Babies who are born before midnight but die 20 minutes later are not really "older" than babies born in the early hours of one day but who die later that evening. But by the way we reckon daycounts, we'd rank the 20-minute baby as "older." In other words, someone who seemingly is "older" by day count by a single day might in fact be younger than someone seemingly day younger, when one considers the time of day born.
And, as Robert Young points out, obsessing over who is older by a day or so misses the grander picture of where the range of people at this age are, which is the more important thing. The fact that, say, a mere handful of people had lived to be 113 by 1980 and now we have something like 150 is the more pertinent "scientific" interest here, not who among two people is "really" older when their year/day count matches but one has an extra day by day count. Canada Jack ( talk) 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not a frequent editor for this specific page, and thus I am unfamiliar with some basic concepts about this list. I have some questions. If anyone can shed any light, I would appreciate that. Thanks in advance. (Question 2): We at Wikipedia only report what outside sources report ... and we do not report any "original research". Do these outside sources (such as GRG, etc.) actually change these age rankings on a day-by-day basis? How does this occur? Do they have a website that they continually update every single day? Thank you. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
I am not a frequent editor for this specific page, and thus I am unfamiliar with some basic concepts about this list. I have some questions. If anyone can shed any light, I would appreciate that. Thanks in advance. (Question 3): In this list, Note #7 states: "The day count for Martha Graham is an estimate as her month of birth is known but not her date of birth." Apparently, it is verified that Martha Graham was born in December 1844 ... but the actual specific and exact date within that month is unknown. Thus, her age is an estimate. Does anyone have any idea as to how her age was "estimated"? Did some source (e.g., GRG) just pick a random date like, say, December 17, 1844 ... and then just "go with it"? If these sources did pick some fictional birth-date ... can we find out what they used? And shouldn't the article list this "estimated" birth-date as well? Thank you. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
Her case is controversial in the sense that, according to Robert Young, her claim could not be verified under current rules because the earliest known document for her is more than 20 years after the event. (The 1900 census states her month and year of birth when she was, I think, a 55-year-old.) As to the estimate, because the "verification" came from the census, and that census only listed month of birth and not date of birth, she therefore lived about 180 days beyond her birthday. Robert notes that frequently, people would list their date of birth as "January 1" or "December 25" if they didn't know it. And if a specific date was not known, the gerontology people would assign a nominal birthdate, though you'd have to ask Robert how often that was done... Canada Jack ( talk) 16:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Another editor has pointed out to me that the dates in this article should be formatted as, for example, 26 June 1876 ... as opposed to June 26, 1876. This editor's reasoning is: "This is an international page, international date system (d-m-y) not American system (m-d-y) applies". This editor also states: "[Using the American system is a] contravention of WP:MOSDATE#Strong national ties to a topic". I looked up that particular Wikipedia policy. It seems to me that using a m-d-y format such as June 26, 1876, is not necessarily an American style. I assume that that style is used in many other parts of the globe, as well. Also, the Wikipedia policy cited states:
Retaining the existing format
I checked back to the initial creation of this article page (from March 8, 2007). At that time -- and ever since -- the article has been formatted with dates in the m-d-y format. So ... rather than engage in edit warring and reverting back-and-forth, I have come to this Talk Page to seek consensus on this issue. Are there any thoughts on this matter? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC))
Here in Australia we use the day/month/year format. I do get confused when I see say 7/6/2005 for example as for me it means 7th June whereas in the American format it means 6th July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.33.91 ( talk) 19:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
"Strong national ties to a topic Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently. In certain subject areas the customary format may differ from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military often use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field."
This is fairly clear that m/d/y is used ONLY in the US and perhaps Canada. This page was (unfortunately) started with that format when, as an international ratyher than US-centric page it should have been d/m/y. On 15 April an anonymous user (edit: ooops, I think this was actually me but on checking the IP it gives the location as China, not one of the IPs I use. I vaguely recall have changed the dates on an article but couldn't remember if it was this one. Sincere apologies. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)) went to the trouble of reformatting the page to d/m/y. Strictly speaking this contravened this section in WP:MOSDATE: "Retaining the existing format If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor"."
However I would suggest that given the international nature of this article that there are insufficient reasons for reverting to m/d/y format, Particularly as no-one else has raised any concerns in the 7 weeks or so since the change was made. DerbyCountyinNZ 07:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Who is she, all of a sudden? I can't find her in the GRG list... Please, someone explain it to me! 87.160.168.202 ( talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody know why Tomoji Tanabe has been removed from the GRG's List of Recent Deaths for 2009? TFBCT1 ( talk) 17:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems very odd to me that the case of Izumi is included in this table when it is at best unverifiable, but it is still recognized by G. World Records. Carrie White however is listed flat out as a FALSE claim on GRG's website. Is she still recognized by Guiness?, if not perhaps she can be removed. It irritates me Guiness seems to want to continue to recognize obvious frauds do to unwilligness to admit a mistake.
GRG has Izumu listed as dispute, White listed as FALSE, and no info on Hongo. Basically was just wondering if anyone (maybe RYoung) could shed some light on any of this and give justification for why these people are stil included on the table, and also the full reasoning for why their ages probably false. Hongo's wiki doesnt even list WHY her supposed age is disputed, that could be important information, no? Lolwikiments ( talk) 05:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Puerto Rico isn't a country; it's a territory. My edit was reverted without discussion or explanation in the edit summary, so I'd like to hear people's opinions here. -- Edge3 ( talk) 02:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've checked with RobertYoung re Matthew Beard appearing to be no longer disputed in the GRG list and this is his respone: "No, this case is still disputed, and that status likely won't change. If a new GRG table inadvertently didn't have italics, that was unintentional.Ryoung122 03:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)". Should we wait for the GRG list to be corrected or just go ahead and revert? {Copied to Talk:Oldest people and Talk:List of the verified oldest men} Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 04:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a new "top 200" list on the GRG page that includes at least one new top-100 listee now listed here yet.
131.96.91.251 (
talk) 03:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
...that almost all of the oldest people in world history died in the late 20th century - 2009? Only one person from this list ( Martha Graham)died before 1980's and it was in 1959. So before 1959 nobody could reach the age of 113, and only in 1980's people suddenly began to live that long? 77.127.118.39 ( talk) 21:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know why this title is "List of the verified oldest people" ... as opposed to "List of the 100 verified oldest people". If we use the former, then the title essentially implies a full list of all of the verified oldest people. If we use the latter, then we are explicitly limiting the list to the top 100. Am I missing something here? Also ... if (for whatever reason) we continue to use the current title, wouldn't it be more proper to say "List of verified oldest people" ... removing the word "the"? I am no linguistics expert, but use of the word "the" in this title does not seem correct. It seems awkward, inappropriate, and grammatically incorrect ... no? Any feedback? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 19:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
Harsh Baat Kijiye(Talk) 13:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
wheres the addendum ,why was it removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.146.105 ( talk) 16:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thank you, i guess there is some good in you after all. 74.249.149.254 ( talk) 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The page currently says "rank disputed" in terms of Butariu. However, this seems to be out of the question on whether her date of birth is as per the Gregorian calendar or the Julian calendar. I have yet to see any source which has raised this issue, it is therefore Original Research. I propose we remove the Gregorian/Julian calendar "issue" from the notes, as no source has raised it as an issue, unless someone can find a source. And I propose we change the "dispute" note to one saying something like "verified by Romanian authorities, but not by international authorities". Canada Jack ( talk) 17:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see any note from the sources regarding a potential issue with the conversions between calendars. I'll give you till Friday to find something we can source, Alan, after which time this Original Research will be removed. Canada Jack ( talk) 14:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Uh, Alan, have I removed anything from the main page? And have I not initiated discussion? The entry as it stands is original research if there is no source "disputing the rank" or questioning whether Romanian authorities know the difference between the various calendars. It matters not one whit if the argument to have the entry is airtight and perfect, nor if others believe it should also be there, if no outside source is making that precise argument. It still is original research, and therefore should be removed. If you have some argument why this is NOT OR, then let's hear it. Canada Jack ( talk) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
For the record, here is what Epstein has: "Anicuta Batariu...June 17,1882-November 21,1997 [Certification apparently only by Romanian authorities]." GRG has the same dates with similar and identical notes: "Batariu was accepted by Romanian authorities," and "Certification apparently only by Romanian authorities," but no reference to a potential date discrepancy. In all instances, an identical birth date is noted for Batariu, with no "?" after the birthdate, no note on Romania being on a different calendar when she was born, nothing but the "Romanian authorities" note. This is, therefore, Original Research, however justified the point being made. Canada Jack ( talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Alan, I've read the archives. the issue was discussed, and similar points were raised. It went for comment, but the comments were focused on the day-count issue, not on the Gregorian calendar issue. So the issue in terms of Batariu/Butariu (do we have the correct spelling here, btw?) was never "resolved."
Since that time, the day-count issue has been resolved, we no longer list ages by days. Since that time, the "Gregorian" issue in terms of Izumi was raised - by me - and we got subsequent agreement to remove the note, when it became clear that you had raised an issue on calendar usage which was completely irrelevant to the Japanese situation. The Izumi issue, incidentally, was raised at the time and not changed until I brought it up again and dealt with it.
Now, we can finally move to remove the final note, as - and this was raised before - the note constitutes Original Research as no source I have found raises this issue at all. You are hereby invited to find a reference which makes the same point of a possible miscalculation of Batariu's birthdate.
However, given your tone in the past I don't believe any reasoning will convince - so let me say this. If any single account person agrees with you - I will make the change. (It is not such a big deal).
The only person with a "tone" problem is you, Alan. The last time, I pointed out the error of the Izumi date "correction," spelled out how the specific days mentioned as a possible error would not apply as Japan was never on the Gregorian calendar, nor on any similar western-style calendar where a date confusion could arise. And every other editor agreed with my analysis. Instead of swallowing your pride and acknowledging the error, you strung out the debate, pretending that it was still an issue whatever calendar they had previously used (without ever telling us where the specific number of days difference arose from), pretended you didn't author the note (which, I found, in fact you had, save for some minor word changes that did not affect the over-all point) and then suggested your main concern was that the proper process was respected, as if the presence of erroneous material was beside the point.
But, I don't believe we are actually in disagreement. The note states accurately "The sources do not indicate ..." the possible discrepancy in dates. The problem with that logic is we could potentially think of any number of "discrepancies" which the sources do not indicate were accounted for. Like, the "sources do not indicate whether the person reading the record was experienced in differentiating European cursive numbers, where a '1' could be misread as a '7.' " Or, whether, using your Gregorian example, whether a person of the Orthodox faith stated an Orthodox date for the birth of their child who was born in a country using the Gregorian calendar. I personally know people here in Toronto, Serbs, for example, who follow the Orthodox dates. Can we be certain they reported a Gregorian date for the birth of their child?
In the end, we should raise points raised by reputable, published sources. Since GRG and Epstein both chose only to mention that Romanian authorities verified the dates, and made no mention of any other potential issue, then neither should we, as that is OR. If you wish to wait until someone else agrees with me, so be it. But that doesn't change the fact that this is OR. Canada Jack ( talk) 01:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
If there is, as you say above, a source for the specific claim that Batariu's birthdate may by mistated by 13 days owing to confusion over calendars, then I recommend you locate that source, and then we can reinstate the note. Otherwise, as I have established (with not a single editor disputing my specific contentions), this is Original Research. Canada Jack ( talk) 00:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I changed the background color of the disputed items, I'm slightly colorblind, and they seemed too close in color to me. If there are any objections to the new color, please state so here, and we can try to find a color that is suitable and contrasts with the green for the living persons. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 04:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why was ranking removed? Also why was Lucy d'Abreu added? I thought it was agreed that although Martha Graham was footnoted, she would not be considered an unproven case, and hence only a need for "six" in the addendum. Please explain. TFBCT1 ( talk) 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not a matter of questioning the source, it's a matter of whether we should declare a case "disputed" when all we have is a name in italics. We need more than that. Canada Jack ( talk) 01:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I found the White citation and put it back. As for the case in question, it seems a bit lame to me to simply say "GRG indicates this is a questionable case," without saying why it is a questionable case, as we have done for all the others. However, I will concede that this is sufficient, even without a description of the nature of the dispute. To be consistent, we should insert a note that GRG calls it questionable. Canada Jack ( talk) 14:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for not checking the previous archives, but as a rookie contributor who rarely uses the discussion section, I wanted to know why Besse Cooper and Walter Breuning are in the Addendum section when they are "validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group". Never mind me, doofus mistake on my part, they have not even reached top 100 yet. However, Besse Cooper are only 4 days away from entering the top 100? Would she be automatically placed on the top 100 or remain in the Addendum section?
Also, I think my confusion comes from the first sentence after the word "Addendum" saying: "Several claims are disputed; accordingly, an addendum of proven claims is included." Then, immediately afterwards, the table showing #101-#107 oldest is displayed. It implies that everyone currently listed are disputed. CalvinTy ( talk) 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
I'd like a consensus as to whether we should remove Martha Graham (and other incomplete cases) from these lists. I should note that Robert Young from GRG has recommended that we not include incomplete cases on the lists and, in fact, Martha Graham is no longer listed on GRG's top 200 oldest list.
I'd also like a vote as to whether we should go with the 1894 birthdate for Moses Hardy (as is now listed on Epstein's page)
I support making both of the above changes. Tim198 ( talk) 13:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
A week has now passed, and since no else has responded I'm going to make the changed I suggested Tim198 ( talk) 10:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
verb (used with object)
to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.
By changing his official birthdate to 1894 Louis is debunking the claim. He's exposing the claim of birth to 1893 as being exaggerated. Why should we go with GRG over Epstein and not vice versa? Again, as I stated in another section above with two of the three earliest records supporting an 1894 birth it makes more sense to go with 1894 over 1893. Derby, you need to provide evidence on why you believe we should stick with 1893. Just saying because GRG said so doesn't cut it my view. Tim198 ( talk) 11:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the rule of thumb should be to list the possible older age, if there is evidence to suggest that age might be accurate. Otherwise, the person disappears from the list and one is unaware of a possible bona fide claimant. Canada Jack ( talk) 14:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Today I worked on the table and added the chinese martial arts master Lu Zijian on the 7-th place. Currently he is 116 years old and 176 days. He was born on the 15 October 1893. So my question is why that information was removed by someone when there are solid facts about his age? Also why, if he is not the oldest living man on the planet right now (I posted this information in the first section), his information was removed in the table? I expect answer or I'll continue to edit this table in the name of solid truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.134.62.50 ( talk) 21:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
He is to be found on the "recent claims" section of Longevity claims. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not pointing fingers, but the first paragraph clearly states:
"A supercentenarian is considered verified if his or her claim has been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group."
However, Anitica Butariu's footnote states:
"Aniţica Butariu's claim was accepted by Romanian authorities, but supporting documentation for the claim has never been produced for inspection by international gerontology organizations. However, nothing has been published to dispute the claim."
So which one is it? We need to decide whether or not Butariu really ought to be on this list. These are two conflicting pieces of info about the validation by international gerontology organisations. Should we rephrase Butariu's footnote or remove her altogether? I don't claim to know a lot about her case, so I'd appreciate the help of you guys. Brendanology ContriB 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
And yes, I'm also wondering why Butariu is still on the GRG's lists. Even Epstein concedes that her "certification (is) apparently only by Romanian authorities". If we include her here, we might as well also include Maria Olivia da Silva as she has been "validated" exclusively by Brazilian authorities. I don't know what she's even doing on this list if the GRG hasn't actually seen her documents. Given that the oldest living Romanian right now is a woman who celebrated her 106th birthday yesterday, I personally find Butariu's claim to 115 very suspicious. This issue is definitely worth discussing some more. -- Brendanology ContriB 12:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Martha Graham should be removed from this list. We don't know exactly when she was born and I think in order to be included on this list each case must have an exact birth and death date. (I also understand that this is the reason she is no longer on the GRG lists)
In regards to Moses Hardy, I noticed that Louis Epstein changed his birthdate to 1894 recently on his list. GRG on the other hand is still sticking with the 1893 birthdate. So now we have two reliable sources saying two different things. I would recommend that we go with the 1894 birthdate because when a case is doubted such as this researchers usually go with the more conservative birthday. (Maggie Barnes, for example could have been either 115, 116, or 117 at death but researchers decided to go with the more conservative estimate of 115). Tim198 ( talk) 13:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Has Epstein specifically "debunked" Hardy? Or has he merely chosen to accept the younger age? This makes a difference as to how he should be treated for this article if the GRG still uses the older age. In any case, I think there should be consensus before any changes are made.DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
de·bunk (d-bngk) tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.
If someone claims to be 114 but turns out to be only 92 (and their mother, if still living, would be only 113), then it's appropriate to use the term "debunked." When a case is only off by one year and there are multiple documents on both points, that is something else.
If Louis had "debunked" Moses Hardy, then why is he on Louis's "validated" list? Louis goes with "1894" but also notes 1893:
Moses Hardy 112 335 January 6,1894 December 7,2006 [some records say born 1893]
While this isn't the place for original research, the original claim to 1893 was backed up by an ID card, 1930 census, and 1910 census match (which qualified, under the 20-year-rule, as proxy proof of birth). Thus, the case was accepted by both Guinness and the GRG. Later, his WWI draft registration and the 1900 census emerged (which I found) listing him as born in 1894. That makes this case problematic, as both dates have some support. In reality, quite a few cases are problematic. Due to Wiki-pedi-holic-ism, some people are so obsessed that they forget the rule for significant digits. Mr. Hardy's social security record listed 1893 (and a second account listed 1892) and the 1920 census supported an even older age (1891). Ryoung122 22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the real issue here is one of consistency. As I mentioned above, I liken the Hardy case to the Maggie Barnes case. Maggie Barnes could have been 116 (based on the 1900 census record) or 115 (based on family bible record). GRG chose to go the conservative route (as they seem to do with all cases that have conflicting evidence) and validated her at age 115. But with Moses Hardy you did the exact opposite and continue to go with 113 versus 112. Also, with the 1900 census being the record closest to Hardy's birth it's more likely to be correct. Based on these facts, I see little reason not to change his age at this point. Tim198 ( talk) 13:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
As for Martha Graham: there should at least be a footnote, as she is included in Louis's lists and was once in the Guinness Book (mid-1980s). I don't list her because there isn't an exact date of birth, and the "proof of age" is the 1900 census (which lists her was born Dec 1844), which is far outside the birth event. Ryoung122 05:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree about Moses Hardy. He is not confirmed to be 113, he may only be 112, but Martha Graham is for sure 114. She may be a few days younger or older than what is said but she should be on the list. We know she is supposed to be one of the top 100 oldest people. So why was she removed? Jdisnard
Re Martha Graham: If Beatrice Farve with even the birth month not known for sure is on the list, Martha Graham should be too. -- Leob ( talk) 06:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Should we extend this list (and the two related lists) to 125 people? jc iindyysgvxc ( my contributions) 02:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest not to limit the list by a number of people but rather by some age. On a long term one might get a kind of exponential distribution of the cases with a random cut-off (in this case 100). Many interesting features of the distribution might get lost and many interesting cases might also get lost. To give an example: The number of male people on the list will decrease dramatically in the future.I would suggest to set the cut off to 113 years or even lower, but not below 110. A way to avoid the mentioned complications and to maintain the list as it is, one might set up another list with a cut off of 113 or lower on which all the cases above a certain age are kept.
79.216.173.61 (
talk) 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is entitled 'verified' and then goes on to list a number of 'disputed' claimants. So which is it? Are the disputed names verified or not? If verified then they need to be listed as such and not as disputed. If they are indeed disputed then they need to be removed from the list - because they are not verified. The article should lose the 'verified' bit or the list should lose those people who have not in fact been 'verified'. As it stands the article is misleading. Wembwandt ( talk) 18:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This list currently jumps from 42 to 44 skipping 43. And no there is no tie for position number 42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.36.14 ( talk) 21:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
This article in the past has, when 2 or more people tie for 100 left them in. This means that the article will temporally have 101 persons until someone bumps them off. I think its fine and a lot better than only having 99 people on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.36.14 ( talk) 21:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Isn't this list very obviously skewed? Fifty ones of the names on it belong to US citizens. This cannot be because birth certificates or other documentation authenticating longevity claims are less available in other countries. Or can it? It seems rather more plausible that the majority of the Gerontology Research Group members are from the US themselves, and thus US claims are easier to verify. If this is the case, very few analytical conclusions may be drawn from the list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.170.14 ( talk) 06:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes... And this is relevant because??? Even so, it is still a fact that it is easier to verify Americans because there is more available data. There are simply not very many countries with sufficient census data from more than 100 years ago, and the US, while far from having the best census data, is definitely the biggest country with easily available such data. Even if the relevant data could be found in quite a few countries, in one as big as the US, it would involve traveling around quite substantially to rural country churches with ancient books of births and deaths. And of course, in many countries, not even such data is available. When brazilian census data is available on the web, there will be more brazilian SC:s, completely regardless of where the correspondents are based... Yubiquitoyama ( talk) 11:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)