Talk:Oldest people/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Eva M. Jacobi 122 Years

According to the Social Security Death Index http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ Eva M Jacobi was born May 5, 1885 and died Sept. 18th, 2007. She was 122 years old and 136 days. LuluWorld (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As this was not mentioned at the time of her death it would seem highly unlikely to be reliable! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to just push it to the side, but you'd need more evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.69.220 (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

==Please note that SOME SS records are typos...what if this woman were born in 1985 and died at 22? Or born in 1895 and died at 112? Who knows? Where is the story? Having worked with SSA data, of 2700 claims from 1980 to 1999, only about 350 turned out to be validated.Ryoung122 07:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thai Buddhist Monks

Has anyone verified any of the Tha monks ages? http://board.palungjit.com/showthread.php?t=145262 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.147.91 (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mark Thrash

Born in 1820. He buried the dead at Chicamauga. Died in 1943. According to Stephen O. Addison's book, Seen the Glory.

This can't be right....

There is no mention of the great Habib Mian, the world's oldest man who died recently at the age of 138, much older than Edna Parker! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.59.44 (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is now, and I am sure I am speaking for most here when I say that the above mention is sufficient. Canada Jack (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

someone deleted it. i'm readding it with a proper citation Levelhand2 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Proper citation is not the point, proper corroboration is. And that is lacking here. Canada Jack (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

proper corroboration? neither WP:V or WP:RS even use that word, so clearly, your assertion is incorrect. if you have a problem with wikipedia policy, go take it up at Wikipedia_talk:V or Wikipedia_talk:RS - the talk page for Talk:Oldest people is not the appropriate place for such discussions. in lieu of that, do not try to supplant wikipedia policy with your own. see WP:OWN Levelhand2 (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those remarkable cases where a claimant ages 10 years in 2... Here is a report from 2006 on his 128th birthday [1], and now we learn that he aged a further 8 years more than the rest of we mere mortals since then! [2] Canada Jack (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

more corroboration. he didn't age 10 years in 2. take a look at the BBC citation [3]. it acknowledges the dispute in his age when it says "But the Guinness Book of Records did not give him this recognition because his pension papers say he was born on May 20, 1878 at Rajgarh in Alwar district.". which is exactly what your gulfnews.com article states. even at 128, however, he is still the oldest person alive. the fact that the age is disputed - the fact that the official records have two conflicting dates - didn't prevent Shigechiyo Izumi from being included so why are you using it as an argument to prevent Habib Mianindias? there's a word for that: hypocrite. Levelhand2 (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, you are new here. The page is for verified claims. Who has verified the claim? Not a recognized authority on gerontology. Guinness is. And, like it or not, they accept Izumi's claim, they don't accept Habib's. (Izumi's claim is controversial as others don't accept it, that is noted within this article. Habib, as far as I can tell, is accepted by no acknowledged authority.) Pension papers, since they are presumably issued when someone reaches a pensionable age - 65 or 70 or what have you - are not normally citable as proof of age. A contemporary birth certificate or some equivalent is what is needed, typically with corroboration from census information, stated age on a wedding certificate, etc. For those in the field, the mere fact that the claimant can't get his year of birth straight raises suspicion. As does the mention that his wife died "recently." What, was she 120? The onus is not on us to disprove a claim, it is on the claimants to provide evidence of their claim, and the sort of evidence required is specific. And that sort of evidence seems here to be lacking. Canada Jack (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

you really do like making things up don't you? no where is it stated that his wife died recently. quoting bbc, "Habib, who outlived his wife by 70 years, was buried at the Ghat Gate graveyard in the Alwar district, after the "Zuhar" (afternoon) prayers.". as for your "[the onus] is on the claimants to provide evidence of their claim, and the sort of evidence required is specific"... I think Alansohn sums it up best:

"Adequate reliable and verifiable sources are provided to establish notability per the Wikipedia:Notability standard. You've got to love the claim that the article should be deleted because "Andy Greenberg - the author of the Forbes article - doesn't get to violate WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO any more then any one here does." We Wikipedians are the only ones under a WP:NEO restriction; we are perfectly entitled to create articles based on what other people have "made up" as long as reliable and verifiable sources are provided. Even better is the claim that "if a mainstream source uses an article violating WP:NOR as its source, the wikipedia article doesn't, all of a sudden, magically become justified." which implies that Wikipedia is "really" the source of the term. Doc, isn't this the plot of the move Back to the Future?"

WP:OWN does not trump WP:V or WP:RS Levelhand2 (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This page has been reverted at least three times. To make this page, a claim needs to be confirmed by a recognized gerontology authority. Habib's claim does not reach that threshold. So it will be removed and stay removed until such confirmation is forthcoming. Canada Jack (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

see WP:OWN. the only policy that matters is WP:V and WP:RS - not "WP:Canada Jack" Levelhand2 (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The only one here who is trying to railroad an article built on several years of collaboration is you, level. Read the following from the article:

...As a result, verification standards have evolved and multiple independent documentary confirmations of birth-date are now required to substantiate a claim, rather than evidence deriving only from the claimant. For claims that have not been satisfactorily confirmed by Guinness World Records, considered the authority, see longevity claims.

The claim has not been accepted by Guinness or any other authority. Therefore it cannot reside on this page. What do you not comprehend here? The top says verified claims. Canada Jack (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The claimant isn't the one claiming to be 138 - it's the BBC who's making that claim and, regardless of what you may think, the BBC's status as an authority is well established for the purposes of wikipedia Levelhand2 (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The BBC isn't Guinness. What don't you understand here? Canada Jack (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"you really do like making things up don't you? no where is it stated that his wife died recently."

From the Times of India: His four sons and wife had died several years ago, Chuttan said.

Hmmm... He's either 130 or 138... His wife died "70 years ago" or "several years ago"... Is there any fact about this guy which anyone agrees with? Canada Jack (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, this has been fun and all, but all this resides properly on the longevity claims page. Where, in fact, it sits. Canada Jack (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

you're fishing. that he has documents supporting two different ages is not unprecedented - do a search for Shigechiyo Izumi on Oldest people. why is his age dispute not up for debate but Habib Mianindias? hypocrisy is why. and as for his wife dying "70 years ago" or "several years ago"... maybe he got remarried to someone much younger than him? ever hear of woody allen?

and as for BBC not being Guiness. so? BBC is not CNN, either, but they're all still valid sources under WP:RS and WP:V, and you, sir, are still guilty of WP:OWN Levelhand2 (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, level, the citation rules generally in use at wikipedia don't apply when it comes to this page which is, specifically, for verified claims. What is meant by "verified" is within the body of the article. As for "hypocrisy," Guinness long ago had what it felt was documentary proof for Izumi, from the 1871 census and elsewhere corroborating his claim. Later, it emerged that Izumi's parents may have given him the same name as a deceased older brother. But Guinness still accepts the claim. Personally, I think Izumi's claim should be removed. But since this page lists the accepted claims, we can't do that. In Habib's case, the only documentary evidence thus cited is for a pension claim, which is why Guinness likely dismissed it. The problem in terms of Habib is that this page is for claims accepted by the recognized authorities on the subject, and they require a standard of verification that the BBC and others do not. But there is, as mentioned, another page where you could cite the Times or what have you, the longevity claims page. Which is where Habib in fact resides. He can't be on both pages, and that is what we had until Habib was removed from here. He can't be both verified and unverified. Canada Jack (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And, as for me "owning" the page, don't be fooled by the fact I am the only one here discussing this. I have no doubt that each and every one of the regular contributors to this page and to the discussions on this page - you being the exception - are in complete agreement with me here. IOW, you would be the one seeking to impose your own view on how this page should be set up, in opposition to the collaborative efforts of everyone else here. Canada Jack (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to chime in here, although I don't really have much to add to what Canada Jack has already gone over here. The BBC is not claiming that he was 138, they are reporting on his claim. They have no basis, no ability and probably no interest in verifying whether or not his claim is true. I have thought perhaps this page needs to be renamed "Verified oldest people" or something similar, though less stolid, but the criteria for inclusion are plain on the page and have been determined by consensus. When you're arguing with only one person, WP:OWN is not a valid policy to employ. It's the equivalent of calling someone selfish so that you can get your way in an argument. Canada Jack is correct... I am sure that I am not the only other regular contributor who would agree with him on this issue, particularly as the addition has been reverted by individuals other than Canada Jack. The only fair way to decide who is included and who is left out is to pick as objective a standard as possible and, as far as I know, only including cases that have been verified by international bodies of gerontology is the best way to come up with. Is it perfect? Absolutely not! It's completely biased towards countries with the resources and stability to produce the types of records needed for verification. I'm certain that there have been some cases, perhaps even one or two that were older than Jeanne Calment, that we actually true, but unverifiable, and thus were left out of being verified and this list. It is, however, the best that we've got and the consensus agrees. Without an at least somewhat objective criteria, we leave ourselves open to this page being completely subjective and each entry would be subject to the whims of those editing the page. We therefore choose a standard that matches Wikipedia: verifiability, not truth. If someone else hasn't verified it first, we don't include it either. Cheers, CP 00:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, don't feed the troll ;-) smc 00:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Always good to assume good faith though. This is very much a controversial article given the way that the news media handles age claims. Cheers, CP 00:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back GRG Robert Young to Wikipedia

He's been unblocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryoung122#Welcome_back

Npnunda 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not going to edit just to edit; only when I see something that needs adding or correcting. Right now things seem pretty calm. Ryoung122 01:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm

The top 10 oldest people living list has remained unchanged for over three months. Is this a record? Will it ever be updated? February 15, 2009 (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It will be updated when it needs updating. SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

10 oldest man list with non-verified claimant

I know this is nit-picky and there is an aesthetic pre-inclination to include a nice round number of ten for the list of living oldest men, but to do so at the current moment we are forced to include someone who is not verified. To make the list 10-deep, Delfino Borroni has been added, despite the fact that, as far as I know, his age has not been verified. I hasten to point out that if we are to include him, why not include any of the other three unverified men who are "older" than him? Perhaps his case is more credible than the others, I don't know, but he currently resides on the "unverified" list.

I know it's nice to have a ten-deep list, but this page is for verified claims, so to be consistent, we should simply make the list "living male supercentenarians" when the number of verified males over 110 dips below 10. Correct me if I am wrong, but generally, these ages are not subject to rigourous verification until the individual in question reaches 110. Are we in agreement? Canada Jack (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I added Borroni. My decision was based on his WW1 service. Obviously Ders des Ders does not deal specifically with longevity, but naturally it does deal with centenarians. Frederic Mathieu has obviously researched his case and been to see him, and we still have 1898 as the birth year. Also Giovanni Alunni is very prompt with Italian cases so he should be on GRG within weeks. This contrasts with the Antonio de Castro case. The Portuguese list system is quite reliable, but it may take a fair bit longer. Filipe Lucas has a remit far beyond Portugal and so it took a year for Augusto de Oliveira to get on GRG.

It would seem arbitrary to place anyone above number 10 at this stage. This could be said for Calloway and especially Washington, who claims to be older than Edna Parker. At least he has 1 document though. According to census data, Calloway is 93. The point is that Borroni's claim has more credibilty than these others. Another point is that this years Japanese cases are due in the next few weeks, and I suspect Patch and Borroni will be knocked out of the top 10 at that point anyway. 78.144.60.104 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

This smacks of original research. You may feel justified to do this, but what constitutes "verified" is clearly spelled out on the page listing living supercentenarians. The point is not what unverified claim has "more credibility" here, the point is the claims are unverified and therefore don't belong on this page. Canada Jack (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Captain Celery, as you mentioned yourself: if we add the Japan cases like Takashi Hattori (born March 12, 1898) then Delfino Borroni wouldn't be in the top 10, anyway.

Just so you know, I have the documents for Borroni but they did not arrive until Sept. 6, 2008, so don't be surprised that he is not immediately on the GRG list. Dr. Coles added Alexina Calvert of Scotland today (born Aug. 13, 1898) who is ten days older.Ryoung122 03:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Man in India

Habib Miyan Habib Miyan played the clarinet in a maharajah's orchestra before retiring 70 years ago.

However, there is much dispute over his actual age. Although he said he was 138 years old, his pension book showed him to be a mere stripling at 129 - and the Guinness Book of Records has been unable to verify his age at all.

Miyan, who lived in Jaipur in western India, had no birth certificate but has collected a state pension for decades. He once worked in the court of the king of Jaipur - Raja Man Singh, where he played in the wind section of the orchestra.

A crowd of thousands attended Miyan's funeral - demonstrating the fame to which he had risen in the state of Rajasthan. He died after suffering fever and dysentery, his niece Munni told reporters.

Miyan sprang to the attention of the world in 1998, when a bank clerk called Rajesh Nagpal decided to look up the records of the venerable old man who had been collecting his pension for as long as anyone could remember.

Six years later he became one of the oldest people to make the pilgrimage to Mecca - a lifelong goal for the devout Muslim.

The visit was exceptional: Miyan, who had been blind for more than 50 years and suffered limited mobility, spent most of his time at home praying and telling stories to his enormous extended family of 140 people.

"If you treat your body well, the body will treat you well," Miyan always said, according to a relative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.60.98 (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This was already discussed above, along with why this properly resides on another page. Canada Jack (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

New

According to [4], a Japanese lady named Kama Chinen has recently been validated. February 15, 2009 (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)