Talk:List of the verified oldest men/Archive 1

Format query

Shouldnt all the people in the list with dead links be changed into normal text? --90.206.20.58 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Big thanks to User:Yubiquitoyama for doing this! Cheers, CP 23:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no need to be rude, but it was infact me that removed the bad links. Sorry, It's just I cant just sit back and let someone else take the credit. Hope there are no bad feelings!--Audrey Knight (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Utaro Tamura

He is listed on Table BB of the GRG but is in the in limbo section as no death date is known. However, despite that, he was 110 years, 271 days old when he was last known to be alive. SiameseTurtle (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest adding an "addenda" list of incomplete cases like this one (missing a birth or death date).Ryoung122 22:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea Robert - and the 100 only for man with both dates. Who add this? --Statistician (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Frank Calloway

This man is not listed at 112. I just saw a CNN article on him.

At 112, artist still going strong[1]

(Trentc (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

He has not yet been validated by GRG. (See List of living supercentenarians#Unverified living supercentenarians) Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And he very likely won't be, since a probable match has been found in the censuses, which makes him "only" 93: another fraud. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite say fraud on this one. I don't think anyone including the man himself has any idea how old he is. In the same realm as Carrie C. White which in my opinion should also be promptly removed from all lists. However, I do realize this is not likely to happen. TFBCT1 (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Extralist

Can someone explain to me why there is a extralist of four persons when there are five disputed cases in the Top 100? --Dangermouse600 (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Because Moses Hardy's dispute involves him being either 113 or 112 at his death. Therefore, although disputed, he would still be in the top 100. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Aime Avignon

Someone is repeatedly changing the death date of Aime Avignon without discussing why this needs to be changed. If said person would care to enter into a discussion, now is his/her opportunity.

The reason we insist on having his death date as August 23, 2007 and his age at death 110 years, 202 days, and not August 25 2007 and 110/204 as Anon keeps changing it to is that is the death date we have on the two primary sources for this page. Anon, if s/he wants to insist on this other date should supply the reasons for this change. If s/he has a source with this date that seems to be more accurate than what our sources have, then there are people here who would definitely want to see that information. Otherwise, please stop your vandal-like approach in dealing with this issue. Canada Jack (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Did some digging on this and it would seem that the source for this date comes from the French wikipedia article on Avignon [2] and the report from the Montpelier newspaper Midi libre. Trouble is, it seems that the date of the article on Avignon is August 25, 2007 and that likely doesn't reflect the actual date of his death, rather the reporting of his death. A search on the paper is of no help here. Perhaps someone else can try. [3] But even if they have the date of August 25 for Avignon's death, we leave the determinations of accurate dates to the gerontologists and not to newspaper reporters who may have crucial details innocently incorrect. Canada Jack (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only the GRG ut also some of the news reports has his death date as 23rd of August. Nothing really points to the 25th of August, although some seem to have confused the death date with the report date. One of the reports made at the time was http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22309106-5001028,00.html which clearly states Avignon died "Thursday", which, the 25th of August, must be referring to the 23rd of August. I would also like to point out that the user in question made multiple changes in other "old-people"-articles which have been reverted, so I doubt he/she is really serious. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

Normally, vandals aren't so fixated on a specific piece of information. In this case, the person seems to have information he probably doesn't realize is wrong. However misguided the tactics, I am assuming good faith here. Canada Jack (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Although not strictly vandalism, it's still irritating. The user twice changed exactly three pieces of data (albeit with two different IP-numbers): Aime Avignon's death date; added Elsie Steele as oldest from 1899 in the validated oldest by year list, despite her not being validated; and removed Marie Mornet from the French Supercentenarian list (she was the last on the list, so it could be conceivable that she wasn't needed on it). Nothing is without a doubt vandalism, but to repeat without acknowledging why people have reverted it, doesn't seem all good faith. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

My assumption of "good faith" is currently hanging on some very thin threads. Canada Jack (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I consider the alterations by the anon user as vandalism because they have done this repeatedly without providing any reasons and seem to be avoiding any talk page discussion. They have also used multiple ISPs to repeat the same edits on the same longevity-related pages and are not editing any other pages. I assume this is to avoid any blocking. I suggest semi-protection on the relevant pages for a week to see if this can be brought to a halt. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Anon did it again. So if someone wants to initiate semi-protection on this and several other related pages, I support it. Canada Jack (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support a semi-protection and a warning to this user. Most, if not all, of the established editors agree with what we have now, and the anon. has shown no inclination to discuss anything.Ryoung122 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The persistent vandal has made the same change yet again. This is getting very tiresome. It is really now time that semi-protection was placed on List of the verified oldest men, List of the verified oldest people and Oldest people. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Josep Armengol Jover

Audrey Knight had added this person the other day, but because he also had in so adding deleted the addendum and reconstructing the addendum was (for me) too tricky, I simply reverted the change. I hoped that this now-verified claim would be reinserted (he'd be #19 on this list, I think), as Epstein has the claim on his list and Robert Young today on the "oldest people" page also has him and he has been inserted into the sequence of verified oldest men. Time for someone to do the honours and insert the Spaniard! Canada Jack (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to say sorry about deleting the addendum, I got a bit confused. --Audrey Knight (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Omitted person?

This person is noted in the List of veterans who died in 2008:

Russia 

Krichevsky, Mikhail Efimovich 25 February 1897 26 December 2008 (111) Last veteran who served for Russia. Joined up in 1917. Accounts differ as to whether he was sent to the Austro-Hungarian front. After October Revolution returned home. Ukraine's oldest man. Lived in Donetsk.[26][27]

He should be number 34 if his claim is valid.

Younsmere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.184.118 (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The WWI veterans pages are more loose with adding people. Mainly because many records were destroyed, or not available, and they're not outlandish claims. Age on the other hand is disputed over all the time: Many people have claimed to have lived over 130 with no evidence to prove it. For someone to be recognised as living to a certain age they have to have plenty of documents to support their claim and be accepted by the GRG or Guinness World Records. So we can say that he probably lived to this age, but until documents are found his case remains unverified. There are other claims similar to this, such as Jerzy Pajaczkowski. There are photos of him in uniform presumably around WW1-era, but he was born in Poland and no documents have been located (although that doesn't mean to say they don't exist). So again, he was probably aged 111 too, but remains unverified. SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Marshall Collier

I'm not sure whether to add Marshall Collier, the great-grandfather of Oscar Robertson. According to Sports Illustrated, he died in 1954 at age 116, "reputed to be America's oldest citizen at the time." --bender235 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This page is for validated cases only, so he should not be added. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sports Illustrated is not the place to turn to for information on verified supercentenarians.Ryoung122 02:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Table

What is the purpose of the "balance" column? It appears to just be a row total. However, the total for the "balance" column is incorrect (108, not 100). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 13:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It should add to 100. It only adds to 108 because people were counting immigrants/emigrants twice. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

114-year-old Nigerian in news, probably false claim...

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) 05:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Muqri

It doesn't matter if one member of the GRG accepts him or not. The GRG itself doesn't. If the GRG truly accepted him as being this age, he would have been the oldest person in the world after Betsy Baker. Secondly, as far as I know, Louis Epstein's list is not online so cannot be cited as a source. Having this man in the list is just adding inconsistency to the articles: Why should be be on this page, and not on either the Oldest People page, or the national recordholder page? This man should be removed from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiameseTurtle (talk • contribs) 10:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think Muhammad al-Muqri is problematic since there is no exact birthday, but otherwise it seems it could be included on account of being on Guinness/Louis Epstein's list. That list is indeed available on the web:

http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

In that case, why is he not included here? SiameseTurtle (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably because born 1844 does not by any certainty make him older than Martha Graham who is born Dec 1844. The lack of exact birthday is in other words probably the problem there. Louis Epstein does not include him either in the successive titleholder list at the bottom of the link above. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

Apologies, I misread the month as an earlier one.

As for Silas Simmons, he isn't listed on the USA list of supercentenarians, or table BB on the GRG, or on Louis Epstein's list - should he be removed from this page and on the US state recordholders' page? SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think so. He is simply not validated, so in lists where validation is a reasonable assumption, he should not be included. I changed both this page and that of oldest in US State accordingly. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

Another question about Muhammad Al-Muqri: Where does the birthdate come from? Is it actually suggested somewhere, or was it simply a way of providing a daycount to compare with the others? That is, chosing the last possible day of the assumed birthyear 1844? (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

I say we get rid of him. Not enough support or evidence to keep him in the list. --Audrey Knight (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As we can read in the articel about him there are different years od birth given - one in 1854, what would make him 102. So nobody can prove his age so remove him. It's not scientific to include him.--Statistician (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings,

I personally don't include former Guinness cases that lack either a birth or death date, such as Roswlia Mielczarak of Poland, Demitrius Philipovitch of Yugoslavia, Muhammad Al-Mokri of Morocco, etc. Louis Epstein, however, includes them for mainly "historical" purposes...for example he lists Al-Mokri (Guinness spelling) but notes that some think he was only 107...Ryoung122 22:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone added him again. What are we doing here? Myth or science? --Statistician (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The same would apply to Izumi, wouldn't it? SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference. First, the Izumi case has a date of birth, and is attested to by the government of Japan, which does not have a history of extreme age claims. Second, the Izumi case is still listed in Guinnes, but the El Mokri case is not. That doesn't mean that the Izumi case is real, but it does mean that there are differences here...Ryoung122 14:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Izumi is probably exaggerated but there are document for this case and his was exeptetd at his time. For al-Muqri don't exist documents and he was never exepted asl validated so please stop this unscientific behavior. --Statistician (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Al-Muqri is now removed from the table. Neptune5000 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You could add him to the footnotes, for historical purposes. He was once in Guinness, believe it or not. Also, one could add Utaro Tamura as an incomplete case (see message below). The formatting needs to be fixed, also.Ryoung122 08:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just some background notes. I initially added al-Muqri to this list. The reason for this is that I thought it ironic that he was not included after I had so much trouble proving my case that Tomoji Tanabe was indeed in the Top 15 men ever back in April 2008, prior to the existence of this list, because of al-Muqri. See what remains of discussion/debate on Tanabe's discussion page w/L. Epstein. I agree now and agreed then that there is not enough information to include al-Muqri on a verified list and am satisfied to see him removed. TFBCT1 (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Today I read an articel about his death in a newspaper from 11.09.1957. The claimed age on this articel is 116 but Mohammed El Mokri (name in the articel) didn't know if he realy was born 116 years ago; he only knew that he remeber the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. There are a lot of doubts about this case and the diverent claimes of age are hints that his age is exaggerated. From which sourece is 1844 as year of birth?
--87.165.244.6 (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Kao Se Tseien

Does he belong on this page, since he lived to age 110 and 11 months? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.222.9 (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No, his claim has not been verified by the various gerontology organizations which explore these claims. And that is the chief requirement here to appear on this (or similar) pages. It does not mean that he did not in fact live to the age claimed, just that the claim does not have the documentation required, or that no or insufficient documentation has been forwarded to an international gerontology group for verification. Some extreme claims, though not verified, warrant inclusion on the Longevity claims page, but those claims are for 113+. He does, however, have his own page. Canada Jack (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Beard still a disputed case

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 people} Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mikhail Krichevsky

What's wrong with his supercentenarian age? There's a lot of documents verifing he indeed was born 1897, 24 February as he completed education in local commercial college in 1917 and then was mobilized for WWI. He died in 2008, 26 December aged 111 years and 307 days. Why he isn't in the list?--91.78.209.233 (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place for original research. If you have documents, please e-mail me at ryoung122@yahoo.com or visit www.grg.org.

Ryoung122 09:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Utaro Tamura

In my opinion, a case missing a death date is "incomplete" and should NOT be included in the top-100 list...better used as a footnote. We also don't know if he died in January, only that he was alive in January 2003.Ryoung122 05:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. He should be removed. Canada Jack (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But he has been proven to have reached that age and is one of the 100 verified oldest men. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now, stats-freaks have been simply making up data where it doesn't exist. That is wrong. We only know that Utaro Tamura was alive as of January 15, 2003. We don't know if he died in January, or February, or March, or whenever (dead by Sept. 2003).

Also with the Spanish gypsy case, some have simply made up a death date where one didn't exist. Reports are that she died in "late January" so to make up a date of January 15 is off.Ryoung122 14:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Beard

How do you guys know that Matthew Beard is really that old. I consider choosing him is bias because there are tons of other people on the SSDI that his age and older. I just can't seem to understand that why he is considered a "Verified" supercentenarian, and the others on the SSDI are not. Beard was only recognized by the Social Security Death Index. There were no news reports, nor obituaries that I've seen.

Was there a census research done on him? Thanks!--Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's NOT true, he was recognized by a study of supercentenarians by the Social Security Administration. That's not the same as the SSDI, which is simply an index of all social security recipient deaths.Ryoung122 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Jozef Kowalski top 10 oldest living men

Why had this man not been listed in top ten oldest living men? He has been listed and verified a WW1 era veteran. His birthday is February 2 1900 so he now is 110. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.179 (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Because his age has not been verified by a reputable authority. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of disputed claims

As the list (and article) is called 'List of the verified oldest men', those who are disputed should not be included. (Or else the title of the article needs changing). Why not remove them and add, in this article, a small second list of the disputed names and ages? Any objections? If not, I'll go ahead and do that. Wembwandt (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Disputed cases are those that were verified, but doubts were later raised as to their authenticity. However the evidence was not strong enough for a full retraction of the case, and the cases are still accepted by the organisations that we cite. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. So they should be kept in the article. Thankyou. But perhaps they ought to be removed from the main table and a smaller 'Disputed' table added? Wembwandt (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wembwandt. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If that was done, then the oldest man in history according to some sources would only appear on the bottom of the page. Better to have the table as is, with the dispute noted. Canada Jack (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

All those edits/undos I did

I think I should stay away from editing this page as to prevent people from thinking that I am a spammer, and being innocently suspended/banned from Wikipedia. So, I won't undo any edits unless it's BLATANTLY SPAM! And, if they add some weird person that might be theirselves, I'll undo that edit. LOL. I also should not edit other pages talking about the world's top 100 verified oldest people ever, and the top 100 verified oldest women, and living supercentarians, and other pages related to this one. LOL YouTubeaholic2009 (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Top 135

I just have to say I really like this new version of the page. I hope it stays this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdisnard (talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't. Why have a "top 135"? Do we have a "top 135" women list? Why 35% more men? Gender bias again.

If the point is 110+, we don't have a women's list with 110+, do we?

Also, 100 is a nice round number, 135 is not.

One point of the top-100 list is that it becomes increasingly more difficult over time to get on the list (unless maximum life span is increasing). Thus, it is a useful tool to leave the list in a top-100 format. If we continue to see as many new cases as before, it's a sign that maximum lifespan is increasing.

Also, Wikipedia is intended to be a summary of information, not the most-in-depth information available from anywhere. Ryoung122 18:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no justification for having a random number such as 135 instead of an accepted round numberr like 100. Repeated edits and endorsements by different anonymous IPs smells like vandalism/sock puppetry to me. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous Spanish cases

There is no consensus that these should be added, yet. Discussion at Talk:List of the verified oldest people. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

addendum

why does the list contains only 99 verified men? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.5.236.52 (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum should have 5 names, not 4

There are 5 disputed names on this list, yet only 4 are listed in the addendum. RoadView (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Moses Hardy would still be on the list if his lower age were to be accepted as the correct age. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oldest living men

Could somebody explain to me why the page "oldest living men" was removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.32.184 (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Try asking here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. They might be able to direct you to the Afd discussion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Walter Harris

The more-recent sources dropped Walter Harris. I see no reason to add him back, other than a listcruftish tendency to overdo everything.

I shouldn't even have to tell the background of this case, but it came from the SSA study and they first said his age was verified, but later admitted that there was no proof of birth and withdrew support.

One could also drop Izumi, as Guinness and the GRG have. I suggest another addenda of withdrawn cases for these two.

Ryoung122 15:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Moses Hardy

What can we do to make sure another name isn't added to the addendum because of Moses Hardy? An invisicomment isn't enough. Should Hardy not be highlighted as "disputed"? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 07:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a more specific term to be applied to Hardy's placement in the list would be "rank disputed". However, it is his age dispute itself that is of concern, not whether or not he would still be in the list if taken under his alternate age. → Brendan 06:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that only his rank, birth date and age be coloured brown, but not the name. This would make his situation "intuitively" visible in the list. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The list omits Józef Kowalski

Józef Kowalski is the Polish oldest living men and the last surviving of Polish-Russian war, at age 111 years and 136 days, he is ranked 54th in the list of verfied men ever up to now (June 18, 2011) and the number of male living supercentenarians will be six.Cristiano Toàn (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is because this article is for the VERIFIED oldest men, and Kowalski is not verified. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As of

Wikipedia is not "assumed to be up to date". That's why we have the {{as of}} template, to mark potentially dated statements and to place them in a related category so that the article is more regularly reviewed and updated. See WP:DATED for further information. Some people seem to just revel in being wrong. Yworo (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The "{{as of}}" before the number of verified living supercentenarians serves a completely different function than that in the table. The number, five, is invalidated the day one of them dies. We can only make a statement about how many there were as of the date of the reference used to support this number. Yworo (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not right to have this discussion in different locations. The subject as to using "as of" in the lede of an article is under discussion at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#As of in intro. Please add to the discussion (involving many editors there). The title of that discussion is "As of in intro", and there are many different aspects to that discussion. If you would like to introduce the use of the template {{as of}} there, feel free—so that everyone can discuss it.

In terms of your worry that "The number, five, is invalidated the day one of them dies", you are obviously not cognisant of the diligent work the editors at these articles perform. Quite contrary to your worries, information on these pages is updated minutes after information is confirmed (and therefore is not the concern you make it out to be). This is a point that was raised at the discussion linked above (with no dissenting replies). GFHandel ♬  01:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't rely on the diligence of editors. Protecting the article against being dated hurts nothing. It was however, done incorrectly before. Nothing should ever say (as of today's day), how can that be verifiable? Yworo (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Flaw in the Age Calculator

When visiting the cache history, the age autocalculator displays the person's age as of today's date, rather than the age they were on the day one visited. For example, on April 2 2012, James McCoubrey was 110 years 202 days, but it now updates to "204" days when viewing.69.15.219.71 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It is probably quite complex to include the revision date into the calculation and I assume left out on purpose. If you want you can bring it up here: Wikipedia:Age calculation templates. Gap9551 (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Rang order

Johnson Parks and Tomoji Tanabe lived exactly the same number of days, so it´s POV to give them different rang numbers.81.230.63.186 (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

These lists are based on age in years and days, not days, so the rankling is correct. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn´t a ranking based on days be more NPOV? 81.230.63.186 (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No. This has been discussed at length some time ago and the consensus was to use years and days. BTW, using days is also POV! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Men top priority for verification !

While there has been hundreds of women reach age 112 verified. The amount of men who reach it is very small. Only 29 men have ever been verified age 112 or better. Once a man claims he is 110 the GRG should put him at top priority to be verified. So many men have claimed to be a supercentarian and have died before they are verified. I believe any man that is 109 and 6 months old should have the process started on verifying his age and on the day he turns 110 be place on the verified list. Ralph Terry the oldest living man in Great Britain born in July of 1903 should allready have been checked out by the GRG. The day he turns 110 he should be on the verified list. Is so sad to see a guy on the other or pending list die before being verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.155.86 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What has this to do with this article? Wiki does not verify claims. Take this to GRG, it does not belong here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Date sorting on death date

The sorting on the death date sorts on day, month and then year. I have no idea why it would do that as the format looks correct and same as the dates entered for birth date. Birth date sorts correctly with year, month then day. Thanks, HJKeats (talk)

It may be something to do with living cases being displayed as text("Living") and therefore the column is sorted as text rather than as dates. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Title is the wrong way round.

This should be called "List of the oldest verified men", not "List of the verified oldest men". They are not verified as being the oldest, they are the oldest whose ages have been verified.88.167.22.75 (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. "Oldest verified men" would imply a list of verified men by age i.e. "oldest 'verified men'". It looks odd, but the alternative would be something like "Oldest men whose age has been verified" which is too cumbersome. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't "look odd" it IS WRONG. A cumbersome but factual title is preferable to a short but false one. --Khajidha (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is neither wrong nor false if you have a competent understanding of English. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Verified oldest men" means that these men have been proven to be the oldest to have ever lived. They have not been so proven and cannot be so proven. They are the oldest men whose age has been verified. --Khajidha (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

An accurate title is certainly preferable to a misleading one. A seven-word title, as suggested above, is not unreasonably cumbersome.88.167.22.75 (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Verified means that these men have been proven to be the oldest to have ever lived. This cannot be proven nor can it ever be proven. They are then the recent oldest men whose age has been verified. The title is misleading.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above editors that the current title is misleading. A similar discussion has taken place at Talk:Main Page, regarding the ITN blurb about the death of Jiroemon Kimura; the solution hit upon was the phrase "longest verified lifespan". Could the same solution work here? List of people with the longest verified lifespan seems like a reasonable title. DoctorKubla (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not take advantage of how the Gerontology Research Group addressed the situation and call it List of the oldest validated living men. HJKeats (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not "list of the oldest men of verified age"?--Khajidha (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be called list of oldest verified men verified by the GRG. The GRG is a modern group that verifies age with great results back to people born 1850 or after. The problem is before that records are fragmented or don't exist. If you believe in GOD and the Bible then you would have to believe the oldest living man was 969 years old and people who were 110 years old were considered young adults. For example in the southern United States in the 1830 census black people were not given a name but listed as slave property. Many wore slave tags with numbers around their necks. This was to identify who they were property of. Not even considered fully human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.155.86 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

New person entered to the list

There is a Ethan Shelton (July 10, 1903) in Gerontology Research Group list. Today he is 110 years 271 days old. 217.174.111.254 (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

New addition, Nazar Singh,

Little known news

a man just turned 110 years old in Britain a few days ago [4], he could be "Britain's oldest man" but that is not verified yet. Does he warrant a place on this page? 86.17.56.162 (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No. This page is for verified cases only. Singh will almost certainly never be verified. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is the page now locked??

It shows data for 30 Sep 2014. I wanted to updated it to show data to today's date. Where I am it is now 01 Nov 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.10.158 (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Because a persistent IP vandal has repeatedly removed the sort from wikitables across longevity articles. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2014

88.15.186.181 (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is blank. Stickee (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Years may be of different lengths due to the presence or absence of a leap day within the year, or to the conversion of dates from one calendar to another

Whose ages are of different lengths due to the conversion of dates from one calendar to another? Omitti86 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Previous consensus has been that differentiating between the length of years, or taking into account the different number of leap years, is not necessary. This was part of the discussion as to whether age should be calculated using days only or years and days. Given that some people are born and die in different time zones at (mostly) unknown times of day it was felt that any further distinctions about "exact" age were not warranted. I don't recall any discussion on the conversion from one calendar to another for any current case on this list. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I missed this - the note was place in good faith by an editor who noted that many countries didn't adopt the Gregorian calendar until as late as the 20th century. Therefore, there - potentially - could be an error if the date conversion wasn't accounted for (as much as 14 days). While a note was attached to some such as a claimant in Romania, I pointed out that a similar note attached to the now-debunked Shig Izumi claim was not warranted as there was no indication that when they adopted the Gregorian calendar there were any issues about miscalculating the days as Japan wasn't on the Julian calendar before. These notes were eventually dropped, but it is there in the lede. Not sure it makes any sense now (made little sense to me then, as anyone who needs to deal with dates going back that far would be more aware than most about these sort of issues of calendrics). Canada Jack (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been reading the discussions and articles on the age of people and note that the oldest person to have EVER lived was "The longest unambiguously documented human lifespan is that of Jeanne Calment of France (1875–1997), who died at age 122 years, 164 days." That sentence was taken from several lists and an article here in Wikipedia. I contend that the really oldest person, which was taken from another article here in Wikipedia that states Methuselah lived for 969 years as stated in Genesis, a book in the King James Version of The Holy Bible. These confusing facts may tend to... well, confuse people. So hopefully this will help those that are confused as to which one is more correct.Duanerson (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Many consider Methuselah's age to be in the realm of myth, so the phrase "longest unambiguously documented human lifespan" does not apply as there is ambiguity here. Further, there are many others who supposed lived even longer than Methuselah: For example, Zahhak lived to be 1,000. Then, there are the individuals on the Sumerian King List, which makes Methuselah seem like an infant in comparison. Canada Jack (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Mark Matthews

His article doesn't question his age; why isn't he on the list? 203.27.24.88 (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2015

59.180.156.250 (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC) france oldest woman died in the age of 169 yrs by mohit lauda

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Inomyabcs (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

When

will the next man be verified? It bothers me that it's an anonymous person who ends the list. 120.144.173.124 (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This talk page is not for such discussions. You need to find one of the fan sites for that. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Addition of Zhou Youguang

We finally have a truly notable man over 110 years old and very close to the top 100 (which is a completely arbitrary number, inconsistent with the 10 [Oldest_people#Ten_oldest_people_living], 53 (List_of_oldest_living_people or other cutoffs List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_United_States#Living_American_supercentenarians on related articles, but an IP and DCNZ don't like it. [5] even my correction of the sentence fragment at the start of the article was blind reverted, along with removal of the unnecessary heading containing the unnecessary word "verified" which really means GRG verified. Zhou_Youguang would be one of the only names the list with solid multiple RS's to back up his inclusion. Legacypac (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with putting the only Notable person who is almost on the top 100 list as a See Also. The top 100 is arbitrary anyway, and Zhou is clearly a related topic. It was removed again. [6]. Discuss and give a good reason he can't be linked at the bottom, or he goes back on as a See Also. Legacypac (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish! The criteria for inclusion in this list has always been to be in the oldest 100, there is no justification for adding anyone who is not in the top 100. Adding anyone who is not just because they are notable for reasons other than longevity makes NO sense. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This kind of thing is exactly what See also sections are for. Legacypac (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If the list of women can have 111 names [7] (due to women who lived the same number of years and days) we can have one See Also here that almost makes the Top 100. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The women's list has 100 names. 100 is not 111. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No the women's list has 111 names, with 100 numbers. Legacypac (talk) 09:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Masamitsu Yoshida

An IP has correctly added Masamitsu Yoshida who is now Japan's (and maybe the world's) oldest man. I know he is not "verified" by GRG but that does not matter since the Japanese govt, AP and others are reporting his age and status.[8] Legacypac (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2016

188.70.25.146 (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC) नई दिल्ली: अपनी जिंदगी हर किसी को प्यारी होती हैं पर हर किसी कि मौत कभी ना कभी आनी जरुर हैं। लेकिन अगर कोई अपनी उम्र से ज्यादा जी ले तो लोग उसको चमत्कार मानने लगते हैं। हम आपको ऐसे इंसान के बारे में बताने जा रहे हैं कि जिसकी उम्र 181 साल की हो गई लेकिन वह जिंदा है। इन बुजुर्ग का नाम है महाष्टा रासी जिन्होंने अपनी जिंदगी के 181 साल पूरे कर लिए हैं।

महाष्टा मुरासी नाम के ये व्यक्ति कहते हैं कि मौत मेरे घर का रास्ता भूल गई है। मैं इंतजार कर रहा हूं लेकिन कम्बखत आती ही नहीं है। इनकी उम्र को देखते हुए लोग इन्हें दैवीय शक्ति बताते हैं। वहीं खुद मुरासी बताते हैं कि उनका जन्म जनवरी 1835 में बेंगलुरु में हुआ था। सन 1903 में महाष्टा मुरासी बेंगलुरु को छोड़कर वाराणसी रहने आ गए और तभी से वे वाराणसी में रह रहे हैं। हां उन्होंने 1957 तक एक मोची काम किया। जब वह अपने काम से रिटायर हुए तब उनकी उम्र 122 साल थी।

गिनीज बुक ऑफ विश्व रिकॉर्ड के मुताबिक पृथ्वी पर महाष्टा सबसे बुजुर्ग इंसान हैं। मुरासी का कहना है कि उन्हें जिंदा रहते हुए एक लंबा अरसा बीत चुका है। इस बीच उनके परनाती-परपोतों को भी मरे एक अरसा बीत चुका है। महाष्टा कहते हैं कि अब तो ऐसा लगता है मुझे मौत कभी आएगी ही नहीं।

मुरासी की जांच करने वाले अंतिम डॉक्टर भी 1971 में मर चुके हैं। इसलिए उनकी पुरानी मेडिकल जांचों की फाइल अब मुश्किल से ही उपलब्ध हो पाती हैं। मुरासी को जानने वाले लोग कहते हैं कि इनके पास शायद कोई दैवीय शक्ति है। कुछ लोगों का कहना है कि इन्‍हें भीष्‍म पितामह की तरह कोई वरदान मिला हुआ है।

 Not done - this is the English Wikipedia - and request should be in English - Arjayay (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's Make a Page for Francisco Núñez Olivera - Oldest Combat Veteran in World History

Hello. I am an American photographer who lives in Spain. During the course of a 7 month long photographic essay on the oldest living Spanish people, I met Francisco Núñez Olivera, who is verified and documented as the world's fourth oldest living man, born on December 13th, 1904, currently age 111 and 233 days. At 18 years old, he joined the Spanish Army and was sent to fight in the 1920-1926 Rif War, and saw front line action as an infantry solder. He is lucid, and has told me stories about his war experiences, and what he learned about being a "real man" from his commanding officer. He is not only the sole survivor of this war, but the world's oldest living veteran. I believe he deserves his own wikipedia page. I would be happy to contribute any information available to me. I have direct contact with his family, and can assist in obtaining any further information required.

I also believe he is the oldest confirmed combat veteran in human history, and the third oldest male military veteran of any kind (source: List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars):

The only two male military veterans older than him, never actually participated in combat, although one, Henry William Allingham, was present at the Battle of Jutland as a mechanic.

Second Boer War: 111 years and 146 days - George Frederick Ives - fought in combat as part of the Imperial Yeomanry

WW1: 113 years and 42 days - Henry Allingham, *was at Battle of Jutland, although as a mechanic*

WW1: 111 years and 38 days - Harry Patch, saw front line action as infantry soldier in trenches

WW1: 115 years and 156 days - Emiliano Mercado del Toro *never deployed, war ended while he was at a training camp*— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.186.82 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Dharampal singh Gudha

Hello Giys had you heard about Dharampal singh Gudha the 118 year old athlete ,please suggest should we add him here .Honi02 talk 04:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is for men whose age has been independently verified, Ghuda's age has not and likely never will be. And his athletic "records" have as much credibility as Fauja Singh, i.e. virtually none. Also the Dharampal singh Gudha article needs some serious cleanup, Wikipedia:Citation overkill does not establish credibility. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Allen Charles Jackson

Allen Charles Jackson and his twin brother Allan Ceascear Jackson (born 24 NOV 1903) are known as two of the oldest twins ever. Allen Charles doesn't seem to be reported deceased but then why is he not a verified living supercentenarian? If living, he is the second-oldest living man behind Israel Kristal. If Allen Charles is living, he should be put in the list. BjörnBergman 23:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be a WP:RS stating that he has reached an age which would put him in this list, i.e. 110 years, 333 days or older. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Youngest living oldest man

I wonder if there was any moment in the (recorded) history when the oldest man alive was 111 years old or even 110 years old or younger. Anyways, there must be a moment in history when the oldest man alive was younger than the oldest man alive from any other moment and it would be very interesting to know who was that person and when it happened. Such a moment should be searched at the moments when the oldest man alive dies. The second place (who becomes automatically the first place) might be the winner of the youngest living oldest people of all times :) —  Ark25  (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This is an answer I got: "Since 1985: Joe Thomas got the title at 109. Since 1999: John Painter, 111. 2000: Tomoji Tanabe, 111. 2010: Alexander Imich, 111. Before 1980, it wasn't uncommon for people to inherit the title at 109 or younger", this is really fun knowing! —  Ark25  (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This OR trivia has no place in Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Good day everyone Josu07 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

List of the verified oldest men

I know someone alive in trinidad and tobago 111 male and his name is not here, I have a news paper with the confirmation Josu07 (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Zhou Youguang

Should Zhou Youguang be included in this list? After all, his country (China) doesn't appear to have produced any verified SCs (unlike the countries where the living male SCs on the list come from). Futurist110 (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Lists of supercentenarians

Re: [9][10][11] ...

Being a supercentenarian is not a defining characteristic of being in the list of oldest men - the list is not defined by absolute age, it is defined by age relative to everyone else in the world - so this list ought not be in Category:Lists of supercentenarians.

(Note that if it were in Category:Lists of supercentenarians, then we'd have to remove the article from the parent Category:Lists of oldest people, because of WP:SUBCAT.)

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: Well, we have a bit of a conundrum here. List of the verified oldest men & List of the verified oldest women are in fact lists of the 100 verified oldest of each gender, & their names therefore fail the precision criteria of the Wikipedia:Article titles policy. Titles of stand-alone lists is a guideline, & states "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject." One could argue that policy trumps guidelines, & that these lists really should be entitled List of the verified 100 oldest men & List of the verified 100 oldest women, or something similar.

Both those lists & the list of Oldest people (the latter actually a collection of embedded lists) exclusively conain supercentenarians. I would be fine with removing each of those three lists from Category:Lists of oldest people & putting them into Category:Lists of supercentenarians as per WP:SUBCAT as everyone on every list in each of those three articles is/was a supercentenarian.

If you feel strongly that these lists should appear under the Category:Lists of oldest people, well, then maybe this is a situation in which Non-diffusing subcategories apply.

I would argue that a list is defined by its de facto contents. Compare de facto From Latin de facto, de (“from, by”) + ablative of factum (“fact, deed, act”) with definition derived from defino: From dē- +‎ fīniō (“set a limit, bound, end”). I would argue that because these lists of oldest men / women / people are limited to supercentenarians, being a supercentarian is ipso facto a defining characteristic of these lists.

Peaceray (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Peaceray I agree with your point about the title vs contents - in principle renaming the articles to "... 100 oldest ..." would be reasonable. (Rather than simply re-applying the bold format to "100", ie reverting [12], you might consider re-wording the lead sentence per MOS:BEGIN, 2nd bullet point.) At the moment List of the verified oldest women has 101 people, with 2 people at position 100, but I think we can safely ignore that - the "spirit" of the list length is clear.

As to the categorization of this article and similar articles about "oldest people" ...

The fact that everyone in the list is a supercentenarian does not make that a defining characteristic. You say that a list is defined by its de facto contents, but I disagree. A list is defined by what the lead sentence (or article title) defines the list to be - and that is simply "verifiable oldest", independently of the absolute age. If the list/article was described as "verifiable oldest supercentenarians" or "list of supercentenarians", then supercentenarians would be a defining characteristic, but it is not. As you mention with the etymology of "definition", the "definition" is what the list is limited to, and the list is limited to the oldest people, not necessarily supercentenarians. If everyone over the age of 110 died tomorrow, we would change the names of the people in the list, but we would not change the definition of the list, and thus we should not have to change the categorization (being a defining characteristic) of the list. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No, actually, even if everyone verified to be over the age of 110 were to die with no one in that age group remaining, the lists would still be of supercentenarians, because they are lists of the 100 oldest men, women and people ever, not 100 oldest currently living men, women and people. 2602:306:3653:8440:7019:F623:472D:3440 (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

...they are lists of the 100 oldest men, women and people ever, not 100 oldest currently living ... -- OK, I missed that. However my point still stands that the defining criteria is "oldest" not "supercentenarians". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that the term "supercentenarian" is not as popular as "oldest" (my mother tongue is not English). A possible solution could be to retain the word "oldest" in the lists and add: Note: All oldest ... are supercentenarians. Xakepxakep (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Peaceray, your claim "Both those lists & the list of Oldest people (the latter actually a collection of embedded lists) exclusively conain supercentenarians." is false: Oldest people#Chronological list of the oldest known living person since 1955 contains several non-supercentenarians. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

HatNote about needs additional citations

The primary source of this list says "If an individual has not been confirmed living in the past year, they are removed from the list, even if their death has not been reported." Since these are people, not objects with an ankle braclet, it's information is probably more current than ... pick your favorite. Seriously: the USA Census is only taken once in ten years.

Rather than remove the HatNote altogether, I've moved it further down. Yunmagz (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2017

Dspielma58 (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2018

I would like to add a Lebanese verified oldest man. His name is Hassan Abdallah. He was born on in an unverified month, in the year 1790(verified) in Lebanon. He died around the beginning of 1905 in Lebanon. This makes him 115 years old and 4th place in oldest men. Citation: قطوف درر المحبين لال عبدالله التنوخيين (The History of the Tannoukhi Abdallah Family), Abdel Latif Hassan Abdallah, 2017 Brightminds2 (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

That is not only not considered verified, claims without an actual date of birth/death are not included. He belongs with the hundreds of other in such unverified claims, on one of the fansites off-Wiki. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Why isn't Richard Overton here?

He is now (February 15, 2018) 111 years and 280 days old. I wanted to put him in but couldn't figure out exactly how. Kostaki mou (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

See the thread 3 above this one. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Suliman Mohamad Al Mel - 125 years?

Anyone have info on this guy claiming to be 125 years? https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/video/it-took-this-man-almost-125-years-to-find-his-valentine/vi-BBJ4slB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:9:0:0:0:42F (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a reputable claim and will likely never be verified. JasonPhelps (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)