Talk:Oldest people/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

More flags

I like the new look with more details of where the supercentenarians have come from and the state flags for the US superC's. How about a Guernsey flag for Margaret Ann Neve in the "Notable early supercentenarians (died before 1950)" section of the oldest people page? Rrsmac 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you did that, might as well put the U.S. state flag for every supercentenarian from the states? Hmm. Neal 06:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

I think its incredibly 'unfair' to 'divide and conquer' nations that happen to be doing well in the 'longevity sweepstakes.' Replacing U.S. flags with state flags is NOT CONSISTENT with the policies applied to most other nations. Also, attempting to divide up France or even the UK into 'regions' misses the whole point of the article. This article is intended to be a general summary of the WORLD'S oldest people, on a world-scale. We already have more detailed coverage elsewhere...national longevity recordholders, list of living supercentenarians, etc.

We can also add 'state' flags to the article about the individual person...but a state flag should NEVER replace the national flag; it should only be in addition to it. That goes for Quebec/Canada as well. Unless of course they vote for independence. Ryoung122 09:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Robert on this, although I hadn't considered it as dividing and conquering. From the European perspective it seemed US centric, because most non-Americans will not recognise the state flags, whereas we all know The Stars and Stripes, like we know the Union Flag, the Rising Sun, the Tricolour etc. Anyhow, for both reasons I think national flags are best. Captain celery 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

One more idea: we could also make a 'list of U.S. state longevity recordholders.' Anyone keep to that?Ryoung122 09:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the U.S. State longevity list. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Neal 04:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I started a table here: it needs formatting issues. I have the data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_longevity_recordholders Ryoung122 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

Greetings,

This page is often heavily vandalized (see recent edit histories). Can we block 'new users' from editing, at least when a 'world's oldest person' passes away?Ryoung122 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oldest man since 1964

Robert, you say that the 'oldest man since 1964' is wrong. Well I have every edition of the Guinness Book of Records, at least the British versions, and back then I think the British version was THE version. The first time an oldest man is listed was John Turner in 1964. Walter Williams was only ever listed as 'oldest person' from 1956.

A few months back I changed the oldest man table. I believe it had Friedrich Wedeking as the first from the age of 105 in 1968. I thought that since one 105 year old was listed, why not add two others, John Turner from 1962 and James Brett from 1955, with Joseph Saint-Amour in between. Brett was removed, presumably due to his dubious status.

Later I added Khasako Dzugayev from 1968-1970, leaving Turner as the only 105 year old. Considering we have Lovisa Svensson listed at 108 for the same time that may not be so pessimistic, but I wanted to find a way of alleviating that problem, and also the fact that Saint-Amour's reign begins when Brett dies. I think I found a good way of doing that, and by reverting it, those problems come back. Captain celery 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, only one error at a time! A lot of what you said above is INCORRECT. I started the 'oldest living man' at 1961 because the James Henry Brett, Jr. case is disputed, but Joseph St. Amour is not. The table NEVER had Friedrich Wekeking at the start...it may have been John Moseley Turner.

I personally don't think the 'oldest man' in the 1960's was a mere 105 years old...this is more of an artifact of a lack of research than reality.

And this could be the same that we don't think the oldest woman in the 1960's is a mere 107 year old, but they're listed as well. Neal 16:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

Also, I don't think Friedrich Wekeking was even in Guinness. Someone added him on the basis of German records.

Third, I said that Guinness established the 'oldest living man' title 'permanently' in the year 2000. Since that time, there has been a Guinness titleholder. If Guinness intermittently had titledholders before that, it was sparing.

Finally, why should we delete a proven case (Joseph St. Amour)? That doesn't make sense to me.Ryoung122 03:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

True enough, we know of an oldest man of 105 or above, back to 1948. But knowing Robert, he won't allow them, since he wants them "Guinness official." He won't allow previous oldest person before 1955, so I doubt he will allow previous oldest man before 1964. I can't even add Elizabeth Kensley's middle name because it wasn't mentioned in the Guinness book or add the region of UK Anna Eliza Williams is from because it wasn't in the Guinness book without Robert's reverts.. I'm sorry Captain celery, you probably won't win this 1. Edit: Oh yeah, I haven't heard of the Walter Williams case, you think you can send me his date of birth - date of death? Thanks. Neal 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Neal, given that the 1960's holes have yet to be filled, what is the point of stretching the rubber band even further back? As for the other two comments, I disagree with those and I don't know where you got those ideas from. If you have SOURCES for your claims, go ahead and add them...to the individual articles. No need to add them to THIS article. Also, Walter Williams was a false case...he claimed to be 117 but turned out to be 105.Ryoung122 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course they can be added to this article. So what if the U.S. Guinness books didn't mention Anna Williams region of UK but the British Guinness books did? Neal 16:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

The point was that Robert reinstated Joseph Saint-Amour from when James Brett died. The problems with this are that although this excludes Brett it also acknowledges him, and it takes John Turner's reign back to 105. It's not like Saint-Amour's article would go to waste because he's on 'oldest person'. To be fair to Robert he usually puts forward fairly compelling arguments to support his position, but in this case I am taking the wording straight from Guinness. It is arguable the other way because they included an oldest living person in two of the 1956 editions and 1958, who happened to be a man.

That was the '5 star general' Walter Williams, supposedly the last US Civil War vet born November 14 1842. When he died on December 19 1959 there was a day of mourning and a military funeral. By the 1960 edition they'd found that he was missing from the 1850 census and listed in 1860 as born 1855. Admittedly we accept that Lennart Ronnback fought in the Finnish Civil War at 12 but 9 is really outlandish. And why would he have exaggerated if not to claim his $435.45 monthly pension?

I think that debacle put the McWhirter's off including an oldest living person for a few years. They introduced the national records table in 1962 but all the entries had died before Williams. They were certainly aware of Brett's supposed age at least by 1963 when they included him for having had an operation at 111. In hindsight perhaps that caution was justified in his case. In 1964 they listed John Turner as oldest living man, albeit for Britain, but it looks like he was the oldest in the world, and that was my justification for that cut off point.

They also listed Elizabeth ALICE Kensley in table format, as the oldest ever person from Britain and still living. Of course she was also the oldest living in the world. They even listed a Matilda Coppins as the previously oldest person from Britain, as if to compensate for the barren spell. Perhaps the problem here is that I'm going by different books to Robert. I have Anna Williams dying in Swansea, Wales. The early editions were very UK centric, since the brothers were based in London, but I didn't know that there were foreign versions back then. 84.13.18.5 01:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Captain celery

OK, so you just admit above that John Turner was listed as the 'oldest living man' in Britain...not the world. At least in 1964. So, I don't see a reason to 'start' in 1964. Since we don't see any compelling male cases before Joseph St. Amour, he is a good place to start.

Also, the June 1860 census listed Walter Williams as '5' years old. But since his birthday was in November, this suggests a birthdate of Nov 1854 (not 1855). And yes, Mr Williams didn't claim to be a Confederate soldier until 1934, during the Depression, when the state of Texas instituted a 'Confederate pension'...which he then promptly applied for (and at first claimed birth in 1846; later he changed it to 1842).

By the way, if you have SOURCING why not send it to me? What are the birth/death dates for Matilda Coppins?Ryoung122 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm okay, looks like I have yet add some more Confederate soldiers to my tables. Thanks for the heads up. Also, can you tell me when Matilda Coppins was born/died? She's also a new case for me. Anyways, I agree that the Britain Guinness books would be more "authentic" than the U.S. Neal 13:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it's more authentic. I'd give them equal credence, but if British books have details which American ones don't then they should still be included. But Elizabeth Kensley's middle name and Anna Williams' birth and death places are on their articles so maybe you won that one. For now we may have carte blanche, but if Robert wants changes when he gets back to us, he is quite the sophist, so you don't stand a chance. It's like arguing punctuation with Bart.

Matilda Evans was born October 10 1842, married Mr Coppins, and died December 22 1951. The records which supposedly show Marie Andersson died at 117 in 1946 were destroyed in the war, so I can see why we don't go back before then. But since we have some data perhaps the ten years in between could be filled in. And that's also about the time when British compulsory birth certification kicked in. Before then it was just Sweden's.

There's a good Walter Williams article on 'last US veterans', although the William Lundy one is hilarious. It's interesting that with Brett, Houston had two supposed male supercentenarians in 1959. GRG only has six SC men now, so two in one city would be impressive. In the fifties it was downright fishy. But I wonder what Brett's motivation was. Unlike Williams he never said he was a Civil War vet. He claimed to have been 15 when it finished so he could have fought, and why not exaggerate a bit more? 89.241.191.34 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Hm okay, turns out none of the last Confederate veterans were oldest man in world. And I agree with the hilariosness of the William Lundy article. Thanks for the Matilda Evans data; she was a new 2nd oldest person in the world for me. If you have any other data like that from the British books I'll take 'em. We probably could drop back a decade from 1945, but that may lower Betsy Baker's starting age to 106, which we might not do despite leaving some 107 year olds in the '60s. Neal 17:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT: Why don't both of you make a concerted effort to either re-write the William Lundy article, or at least TAG it (i.e. 'controversial/disputed)? Please try to be a little more pro-active.Ryoung122 03:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why I wanted John Turner's reign to start later. The amazing thing about Betsy Baker is that you look back at other cases listed at the time, but she always bookends them. I imagine you're refering to Isabella Shepeard as Baker's predecessor. Incidentally, she died in the city where I was born.

The Isabella Shepheard case is also problematic: she claimed to be '115' and Guinness says she was 'more probably' 109. But we don't know that she was 109 for certain, or where that information came from. Care to investigate?Ryoung122 03:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, so she was debunked. That's fine. Just like Martha Graham. Oh. but why is Martha Graham included in the table? Oh! Because of her children. Anyways, as per investigating her, does Dr. John MacCormack know about her? Neal 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with the men is that all the Civil War claimants could cloud things going back to the fifties, but then again there have always been dubious cases. The William Lundy article looks like it was written by a Confederate lunatic trying to convince people about a man who died literally 50 years ago (tomorrow). Even us sticklers for detail couldn't be bothered to correct it. 89.242.112.103 08:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Aimé Avignon dies

Judging by Bart's updates, Mr Avignon has died, which leaves the problem of 10th place. When Elias Wen died there was a big gap between Avignon and Aarne Arvonen, but he had been mentioned as the next in line and so I added him, and he is still there. This time there is a smaller gap. I know that not every man approaching supercentenarian status is a WW1 vet, but Louis de Cazenave has also been mentioned as next in line, and he is very close to 110. If there is someone older, then I apologise. Captain celery 23:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

He has indeed regrettably, and Cazenave is still in good condition judging by his pictures. Extremely sexy 13:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Middle name removal

An anonymous user has recently gone through and removed a number of middle names and initials from displayed names. Can anyone explain what exactly the point of doing this is? DerbyCountyinNZ 00:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a 'style' issue. I do have a problem, however, with middle names removed when a person's full name was used in the media (i.e. Mamie Eva Keith, Anna Eliza Williams, Maren Bolette Torp). If you don't like it, change it back. Remember, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit.' Ryoung122 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I own up. That was me. I just thought that it was an unnecessary detail. Of course middle names should be included on individual articles but I'd prefer for the article titles not to include middle names unless for disambiguation. I didn't know how to change that but I did take them off the main page. It is indeed a style point. Obviously, I left hyphenated names because they are part of the first or surnames. For some Latin countries I know that the policy is to take both the paternal and maternal names (although if only one is used then it's the paternal) so I also left those.

I can understand why the 'oldest living by country' page was reverted, since the middle names will be needed if articles are created. They could be found in the citations but I admit that this is easier. The one I would query is George Francis since he already has an article and Rene is not included on the main page. As far as the media thing goes I can understand why Anna Williams' middle name was included - to disambiguate. Maybe it's my British bias, but Mamie Keith and Maren Torp do not seem like common names, which suggests to me that it is a hit and miss issue. That's why I would say that we should generally leave out middle names. 89.240.82.229 20:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

I just see it as a 'style' issue. Note actor 'Seann William Scott' uses three names...to disambiguate? Maybe. But maybe also because the syllabic stress sounds better. Ma-mie E-va Keith...Ryoung122 09:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Page is really confusing

Why are there so many different tables? It's organized rather poorly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.140.85 (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Subjective question. And I'll just ignore your second sentence since you didn't have anything else to add to it. Neal 16:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oldest living man

Some candidates for the 'top 10' oldest living men include others from Japan:

• 1896/10/18 Giichi Okumura (M, Hokkaido, Japan)
• 1897/03/05 Shozo Otani (M, Niigata, Japan)
• 1897/04/19 Jiroemon Kimura (M, Kyoto, Japan)
• 1897/08/02 Kiyoshi Igarashi (M, Hokkaido, Japan)
• 1897/08/20 Masatake Kinoshita (M, Okayama, Japan)

Together with Tomoji Tanabe and Sukesaburo Nakanishi...that would be 7 (except the lower cases wouldn't be in the top 10 anymore!). Ryoung122 09:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: we can confirm the above 5 to be living as of Sept 2006. If/when the Sept 2007 list is released, we'll find out who is still with us and who's a contender and who's a pretender (i.e. Louis de Cazenave, currently 10th on the list; Arne Aarvonen, in 9th, etc.). Ryoung122 09:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they are contenders after all. Although I added Mr Arvonen a long time before he should have been on. How was I to know? Ironically, I added Mr Cazenave at exactly the right time, assuming that the 4 other Japanese men didn't die in the last month. I suppose that's the nature of being 109. I thought we might be back up to the full compliment of supercentenarians, but it should only be a few weeks. Perhaps Mr Oliveira's validation will come too. It's a shame that Mr Hite has been relegated since that is a fantastic name. Some would argue for him instead of Mr Kao. Anyway, he is next in line, unless there are some new Japanese cases... 89.240.219.197 17:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

And the validation has come as Robert had previously said that it might. Let's hope Mr Kimura's doesn't take so long. 84.13.12.96 00:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Well I take it all back and refer to my previous excuse. Now that the oldest Japanese candidate has been added it turns out I did add Cazenave too early. He'll be very unlucky to reach 110 and not be on the list. I don't know when was the last time that happened. This puts Japan on 3, and why not, since the US has the same, and now Europe aswell. 84.13.37.172 16:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Sukesaburo Nakanishi: is he alive or dead? He isn't listed on the living page and there is a news report saying he died, so how comes he is still on the list? I'd take him off myself, but don't wanna mess if he isn't. Webbmyster 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

He isn't listed on the living page. Then perhaps he died. Oh, so there's a news report saying he died. Then that must be it then! How come he is still on the list? Contradicting question? Neal 16:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nakanishi died August 22nd

The top ten of oldest men and women are extremely young. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.12.208 (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What does your statement have to do with your topic? Neal 16:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But nevertheless: he definitely is dead allright. Extremely sexy 18:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is now protected

I have protected this page due to the fact that people have been putting people from longevity claims as the oldest people, which is not fair to Edna Parker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyjacks (talk • contribs) 03:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wohoo! Now all we have to do is extend the October 21 sometime. Neal 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC).

What exactly do you mean by that? Extremely sexy 19:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Meaning he set it to expire on October 21, and so now all we have to do is extend that. Vandalism can happen after October 21, no? Neal 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but already before too since it isn't protected at all really, my friend. Extremely sexy 12:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the page is not protected, since you have to be an administrator in order to do this: nice try though. Extremely sexy 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yea, I did that before. There's a tag you have to add in order for the bot to not revert. Neal 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Right: which can only be put in place by an administrator. Extremely sexy 12:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The tag can be placed by anyone, but the protection still won't be in effect because, as Bart has correctly pointed out, only an admin can protect a page and they'll only do so if there's lots of vandalism, not just some. Cheers, CP 13:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but do you honestly think there hasn't been enough vandalism going on lately? Extremely sexy 14:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

One attack every few days is nothing compared to pages that actually get protected. Cheers, CP 15:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Got it, Paul. Extremely sexy 15:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What if Tanabe died today?

The death of Mr Nakanishi has brought this issue into sharp focus. Mr Tanabe is by all accounts in good shape. But it's not beyond the realms of possibility that both Mr Allingham and Mr Francis will outlive him. So who would take the title? It would be a great human interest story to have a man from London and another from New Orleans as oldest men, especially with the terror attacks and Hurricane Katrina. But if there is a way to seperate them then I'm sure we'd all like to know. Allingham has the timezone advantage but does that prove anything? 84.13.12.96 00:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Both of them then. Extremely sexy 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I really do not think that either George Francis or Henry allingham will be the oldest living man because they are not in good of shape as Tomoji tanabe, To answer your question they would be both the oldest living man but one may have a birth ceritificate that s proves that they are a few hours than the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.12.208 (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the oldest man in the world being a tie by date of birth. Guinness doesn't have a "1-person" policy, now does it? This itself is another stupid question. Neal 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in terms of actual oldest - they may have been born on the same day, but might not have been born at the same time. Therefore, strictly speaking, one of them will be older than the other - and would qualify for being the oldest man (obviously that's academic whilst Tomoji Tanabe is still living). The word oldest strictly means that there is only one which is older than all the others. I'm pretty sure that my UK certificate displays my time of birth, as well as date etc., but I'm not sure if that will have been the case in the 1890s, however. I know nothing about USA birth certificates - so no idea what that will show.

But, at the end of the day, it's not Wikipedia editor's job to decide who is #1, #2 etc. We have to use other sources. If Guinness book of records were to decide that it's a tie, then Wikipedia must reflect this. If not, then Wikipedia must reflect their decision to place one higher than the other. Richard B 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about being born on the same time. I said there's nothing wrong with the oldest man in the world being a tie by date of birth. Perhaps you didn't intend to use the colon. Neal 21:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the brackets added to my title since it didn't make any sense and a talk page requires something more extreme than a supposedly stupid question to edit it. I really wish people would properly read what I put. I said that Tanabe would probably outlive at least one of Allingham and Francis, but one old man dying before two slightly younger men is hardly implausible. I also said that it would be great for them to be joint-holders. But we don't have to copy everything Guinness says. It would just be nice to know who is oldest in terms of hours. 84.13.4.24 23:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Okay, I'll answer your question "what if Tanabe died today." And I'll assume that Francis and Allingham are both alive. Guinness will automatically crown both of them the title after a few days or weeks. Both of their birth certificates will have to mention the hour/minute. If 1 of them doesn't have the hour/minute, then it won't be resolved. If none of them have the hour/minute, then it also won't be resolved. If both of them have the hour/minute, I imagine Guinness will still recognize the 2nd oldest man as whatever hours younger. Not that hard of a concept, is it? Heh. Neal 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need the time on Francis' birth certificate. If Allingham's certificate stated 12:01 AM or 1 AM etc, then Francis must have been born later due to the time difference. Not that hard of a concept, is it? Perhaps the question should be "are times stated on Henry Allingham and/or George Francis' birth certificates?" since someone will have seen them for them to be on GRG. If people could get beyond the pedantry then that's obviously what I was looking for. I accept that Guinness would give them both the title. May I be flamed to death if I ever raise a topic of conversation again. 84.13.41.75 19:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Nah. And yes, I agree, if it is impossible for the other to be older or younger if you knew 1's hour/minute without the other, that indeed is true too. I wouldn't consider that too to be hard of a concept - I sort of had the idea you sort of knew the answer. But I guess the answer you were looking for, none of us could answer, only Guinness could answer (or whatever Guinness does). After all, you are asking in the realms of "hypothetical situation." Guinness to my knowledge never had that problem/incident before. But of course, Guinness was the only source going back in time. Now we have the Gerontology Research Group (whom claim to follow Guinness, of course). But if Guinness ignores the hour/minute and doesn't take them into consideration, and you e-mail Robert Young or the G.R.G. images of both birth certificates and both of them had the time, then the G.R.G. tables will list them in the right order, and not use "tie." But today, it doesn't matter what Guinness says. It matters what the facts are (that is, the sources). Neal 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, it is hypothetical, but it has been looming ever since Mr Francis was validated. If it doesn't come to pass then I think it was still worth the discussion for the future or just for the sake of debate. I wouldn't say no-one could answer. I suppose Robert would be the one. I imagine he'll comment on this sooner or later. 89.242.212.107 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

I thought it had already been established that Allingham was born earlier which is why he was listed first?DerbyCountyinNZ 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who added Francis. Robert doesn't tend to do that and as I said, he is in the best position to know for sure. Then again it was him who raised the case. It does say it is a tie though. Allingham may be first because it's alphabetical, because he was on first, because of timezones, or a combination of these. 84.13.5.29 02:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

I disagree with Derby. Robert put Allingham on top of Francis because he says "Allingham is more likely older" for being born in the timezone advantage. Anyways, most of Robert's U.S. cases are by census matches, so for most of them, he hasn't seen their birth certificates, which may include the hour:minute. Neal 15:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

Let me just say a few things:

1. The Supreme Court doesn't rule on issues not presented before it. Neither does a non-ruling establish precedent. But if a new situation arises and they rule on it, it esablishes precedent.

Given that Guinness World Records has never had the problem of a 'first-place tie' (the closest was a three-day lead: Mary McKinney born May 30 1873 over Anna Eliza Williams born June 2 1873 in 1987), there is no ruling. However, I note that in the case of Marie-Louise Meilleur/Sarah Knauss, they gave the title to Meilleur in Aug 2007 but made the unusual decision to announce Sarah Knauss as 'second-oldest' because she was such a close second place.

Currently, when a person's date of birth is 'tied,' the first tiebreaker for the GRG is 'time zone'. If they come from the same time zone, the second breaker is alphabetical order. However, this is only in terms of 'ordinal' listing: I prefer to still use the word 'tie' for the rank given. Note in a case like Yone Myra Nicholson of Australia, she died on Sept. 20 but we found out on Sept. 19...showing how much a factor the time zone difference can be. Note that French birth certificates have the time of day someone is born; I don't remember if the UK certificates do but I would have to re-check. However, if, for example, Mr Allingham is seven time zones ahead of George Francis's birth zone (Central time, USA) then if Mr Allingham was born before 7AM then he would certainly be older. Note that Mr. Francis's age comes from the 1900 census, so we can't say for sure what time of day he was born (though it was June 6, based on other documents).

But again, Guinness has not had to rule on this yet, so we shall have to wait and see.Ryoung122 16:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to emphasize 1 last thing which I thought may have been part of the topic starter's question, which is the case if what if Tanabe died today. As we know, Guinness will take days or weeks before it officially crowns a new title. Guinness has never crowned a title the day at or after someone's death to my knowledge. I guess his question may arouse to what will Wikipedia users do. Sure enough, when the oldest person in world dies, the new oldest person on list gets their articles updated, weeks before Guinness news. What I would do is mention the current tie-breaker, as well as mention Allingham is the likely older, in the tables and in their articles. Neal 22:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say, this topic's been giving me nightmares. A couple days ago or so I must have dreamt this incident. I recall thinking in a sleep-state how could Tanabe be dead? Then I can realize it didn't happen when I was awake. Neal 16:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Spooky: nearing Halloween. Extremely sexy 11:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then I apologise for that. When I saw that one of the veterans had died in France, I thought it couldn't be de Cazenave, because he'd been steaming towards 110, and indeed it was Justin Tuveri. Tanabe would be a surprise because he looks like he's got a few more years left in him. Is Christian Mortensen under threat? 80.2.16.73 16:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Captain celery