Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Race II

• 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)

---

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

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

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

No objections. I always thought it was both an unnecessary addition and unjustifiable categorisation. DerbyCountyinNZ 05:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it should be there. "Race" is a social construction, and race-based theories are that some people are 'superior' to others. Wouldn't showing that there is little or no difference, everyone lives the same, be a positive?

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

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

Leave the race part. Alan Davidson 11:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Robert and Alan: leave it in. Extremely sexy 13:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

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

List of the oldest people (correction)

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

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

• There was a mistake with her birthdate. Mrs Frank was born in 1881, not in 1880. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.99.62 (talk • contribs)

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 {^yakł_talk} 05:03, 24 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 {^yakł_talk} 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)

• Lol... Neal (talk) 03:46, 21 November 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)

• It has emerged that this 'case' was a hoax, after investigation by a Spanish authority:

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

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another well informed source simply says he was single.

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

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

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

Regards, Miguel

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

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 Wikipedia, 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, Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is not supposed to be the in-depth, exhaustive coverage but a general overview. The lists down to 110 can be found at sites like www.grg.org.Ryoung122 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 03:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Arbella Ewing is currently the 109th oldest verified person in history. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 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^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 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 going to come to a consensus with this? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be those whose age in years and days is being automatically calculated by template that have the commas in. Those who have died and have their age shown manually are correctly lacking commas. - fchd (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I know. The article should have consistency, and someone had reverted the commas a while back. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 00:39, 10 January 2008 (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)

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

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

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

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, Wikipedia policy should be to follow what the outside mainstream sources report. We see Izumi even in the most recent Guinness editions. Therefore, to remove him would be 'original research'. However, adding a ? mark is not: we can cite sources that question his age.Ryoung122 04:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"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)

# 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)

Maria de Jesus

• As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_de_Jesus says, Maria de Jesus died recently. I please you to correct that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.140.247.147 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well: that's simply not true I hope. Extremely sexy 22:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually it doesn't say that, and checking the edit history, there is no evidence that it ever said that. Ryoung122 22:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed there is not, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 22:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good lord, why do we even both responding to troll topics. So much for a good hoax. Neal (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Because one never knows. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)