Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-hitter and Talk:Oldest people: Difference between pages

Revision as of 07:13, 29 April 2006

Revision as of 01:31, 22 July 2007

Line 1:

{{Archive box|[[talk:Oldest people/archive 1|Archive 1]] - First archive of page}}

===[[One-hitter]]===

Appears to be a [[WP:N|non-notable]], [[WP:V|unverifiable]], unstable [[WP:NEO|neologism]], i.e. [[wikt:protologism|protologism]]. Prod disputed. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

==Will people like DOCU stop vandalizing the links?==

* Uh, what? One hitter is absolutely a well-known, undisputed baseball statistic and phrase, used constantly when it occurs. Absolutely notable, verifiable, and stable. '''Strongest possible keep''' and expand further. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 01:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

**I also apologise for my tone here. It dawned on me that you might not be from America and not know baseball, which may be the case here. No offense meant in any regard, although it's still an incredibly notable part of baseball. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 01:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is NO reason to delete the links to articles like 'supercentenarians' and 'centenarians' while inserting silly links to inanimate objects like 'oldest companies'. For someone supposedly responsible, these edits are a waste of time and childish. → [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 09:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' If heard of it, i've never done it, but I have heard of it. <font color="red">[[user:ILovePlankton|I]]</font><font color="orange">[[user talk:ILovePlankton|Lov]]</font><font color="lime">[[user:ILovePlankton/Esperanza|E]]</font>[[Plankton]] 01:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

*'''Strong Keep''' per Badlydrawnjeff. --[[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Srikeit|it]]</b>^{'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''[[User_talk:Srikeit|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">talk</span>]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Srikeit|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">✉</span>]]'''<span style="color:#800080">)</span>'''}'' 01:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

==Top 10 or 110+==

*'''Keep'''- per jeff. [[User:Reyk|<font color="Maroon">'''Reyk'''</font>]] _{[[User talk:Reyk|'''<font color="Blue">YO!</font>''']]} 01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - it's obviously notable, but would someone explain why the article is more than a dic.def.? I think that should be the issue we're focused on. Perhaps it can be expanded with famous examples or something, but it's not clear to me as someone with almost no knowledge of baseball. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 02:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In the discussion of 'top 10' or 110+, the original intent was to have a 'top 10' list, but at one point there were only 9 living cases 110+. So, that's where the headline came from. I guess it could be argued to include all living male cases 110+, but that's not the point. Moreover, it's not fair to the females...do we list all the females 110+? In fact, we instead have 'top 10 oldest persons' including two males. So, men already get a break, being listed both ways, and getting to be included if far younger. We still have women from 1893 not listed yet. So, I think it's more than fair to just do a 'top 10 males' list.

**That's the article's flaw, current;y. It can easily be expanded, however, with more explanation, perhaps examples of one-hitters, etc. Unlike the commenter's words below, more can be said. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 03:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

*'''Transwiki''' It's a dicdef, and nothing more can be said than is already there. [[User:Fan-1967|Fan1967]] 02:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, about the UK comment...one would think that an article on Henry Allingham, plus a separate listing under living WWI veterans would be enough. Trying to make Henry fit the table instead of vice versa is putting the cart before the horse. If he lives long enough, he'll make the table naturally. What, do you think the UK is 'crippled' and needs a 'crutch' (affirmative action standards) to be included? You don't think Mr Allingham can compete with the rest of the world? Think about it. Finally, one would hope that people would be a little less self-centered and parochial, and try to learn about other people around the world instead of just those in their area. Finally, you don't know if Mr Allingham is really next in line or not, do you? Another male might be born between the current #10 and Mr Allingham. Think about it.

*'''Keep''', 'Tis Encyclopedic --'''<font color="crimson">[[User:Anirudhsbh|Andy123]]</font>'''<small><font color="green">[[User talk:Anirudhsbh|(talk)]]</font></small> 02:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>[[User:Terence Ong|nc]][[User talk:Terence Ong|e Ong]] 03:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: the issue with me is not really the UK per se, but things being blown out of proportion. Again, there are 9 women in the UK older than Mr Allingham (including Emmeline Brice, 111; Nellie Fields, 111; Annie Knight, 111). I think it is regretttable that women are once again related to second-class citizens...being ignored while the 'alpha males' are placed front and center, breaking the rules to get there. → [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''', certainly notable and verifiable, although as it stands it's just a dicdef. But it ''could'' be expanded --[[User:Deville|Deville]] ([[User talk:Deville|Talk]]) 03:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

*'''Move to Wiktionary''' --[[User:Baumfabrik|die Baumfabrik]] 04:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings,

*'''Transwiki''' as probably unexpandable <small>—[[User:Porge|porges]]_{([[User talk:Porge|talk]])}</small> 04:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

**Incorrect. There is plenty to expand on. Who has and when they did achieve a one-hitter, notable one-hitters, more or less everything found on [[No hitter]]. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]][[User:SorryGuy/Esperanza|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">Guy</font></span>]] 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What about the oldest living Russian Orthodox priest, born Dec 19 1896? There's also George Francis, born June 6 1896...the 'oldest man' list has still more cases out there...→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 08:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Strong Keep''', this is a verifiable and common thing in the baseball community, very well known. -- [[User:Patman2648|Patman2648]] 06:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. Definitely a real term and an encyclopedic topic. The article could use to be expanded, though. --[[User:Idont Havaname|Idont Havaname]] ([[User talk:Idont Havaname|Talk]]) 06:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the validation to put them on the list, I know...

*'''Strong Keep''', notable and worthwhile article. Needs to become similiar to [[No Hitter]] article. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]][[User:SorryGuy/Esperanza|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">Guy</font></span>]] 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Robert, do you have a contact for the Russian priest or for George Francis, i.e. is there some hope that these cases will be validated?

I want a top 10, and not a 110+, but does someone know who the next men are after Aimé Avignon? The gap between him and the next two men I know of (Scarrabelotti from Australia and Arvonen from Finland - both born 04.08.1897) is too big to believe that there isn't anybody to fill it. Or what do you think? Should someone ask on the "WorldOldestPeople" mailing list?

[[User:Statistician|Statistician]] 12.02.2007 17:07 (CET)

==Elias Wan 110 years old!!!==

http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/11enoilyaven110.html

http://www.cerkiew.pl/news.php?id=5199 <small>

—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/83.30.172.74|83.30.172.74]] ([[User talk:83.30.172.74|talk]]) 08:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:But could this really be proven too? Extremely sexy 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings,

Can this case be proven? Where are the records? Who is responsible for it?

Sincerely,

Robert Young→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 04:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

HERE ARE TWO OTHER LINKS: http://www.orthodox.cn/news/031115frwen_en.htm and http://www.orthodox.cn/contemporary/shanghai/frelias_en.htm FROM 2003 AND 2006, WHEN HE CELEBRATED HIS 107th AND 110th BIRTHDAY. THAT SHOWS, THAT MR. WENS CLAIM "IS" CORRECT. HE IS NOT ONE OF THIS PEOPLE YOU`VE NEVER HEARD SOMETHING BEFORE, BUT SUDDENLY ARE 110 YEARS OLD.

AS IT IS SAID IN THE TEXT, MR. WEN CURRENTLY LIVES IN SAN FRANCISCO, AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE PARISH COUNCIL AT THE HOLY VIRGIN CATHEDRAL ON GEARY BLVD.

:I hope Robert will be able to validate him through the Census then, but he was probably born in an Asian or Eastern country, which will make it very difficult to do just that, so fingers crossed. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add him to Wikipedia. The standards here are slightly lower than the GRG...being a priest, its likely his entire life has been documented. The GRG issue is...will someone send those documents in? He won't be on the list without them, but we may assume he is 110...→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 03:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

== Methuselah ==

I'm curious why [[Methuselah]] isn't even mentioned in the article. Coming in at 969 years old, Wikipedia's own article on the man describes him as "the oldest person whose age is mentioned in the [[Hebrew Bible]]." I understand that most people do not consider the Bible to be a historical document, but I would imagine that he would at least be mentioned under a "Religious Characters" section or something. [[User:Moohasha|David Mitchell]] 21:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with you, plus he is mentioned on the Dutch version of the article. Extremely sexy 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree...a LOT. Mixing religion and myth with science is like putting church and state together. They don't go. What next, "China's oldest Daoist was 256" and "the oldest Indian vedda is 24,000 years". No, we don't need this. Sad.→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 07:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:I agree: Methuselah's age is not verifiable, and therefore should not be in this article. [[User:134.187.162.248|134.187.162.248]] 22:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

First, do not bring up the "church and state" deal. Second, science backs religion, and religion proves the rest. Now, may I remind you that people were and are extremely and blindly against the Bible. They said the Hittites never existed, but later archaeological finds said otherwise. Do not make the same mistake. Methuselah's age may not be able to be proved scientifically, but it is true. I am not blind or incompetant. I do believe in God Almighty and Jesus Christ. Let me remind you that you can not prove evolution, but it has been dubbed "truth", despite the fact that it is still theory. So, do not dub Religion as "Myth", when although I see it as fact, I understand you see it as "myth". So until you find a formula or something that proves Religion as "Myth", it should be mentioned in the article. --[[User:69.67.230.16|69.67.230.16]] 19:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:In Genesis 6:3, God states that man's life will be limited to 120 years. That prophecy of several thousand years ago is still true. [[User:209.145.207.91|209.145.207.91]] 00:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:We have [[Longevity claims]] and [[Longevity myths]] which would be better places to try and get such dubiously sourced ages mentioned. This is only for people's who's ages have been certified by various reliable sources. Also, science doesn't back a lot of the crap religion claims. For example, many religions claim god created life & the universe, mircales are possible etc none of which agrees with science. Christianity in particular has a number of dubious claims like Noah's ark which is so obviously bullshit it's not even worth considering [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Methuselah should be removed from that list for a few reasons. 1) By adding him exclusively to that list, you are neglecting quite a few other figures, some in the Hebrew Scriptures some not, who lived well beyond the reported age of the second oldest person. It seems to be added as an attempt of someone to show that they learned a piece of Bible trivia at some point in their lives. 2) It seems rather short sighted to call the list the oldest people/men/women ever when the only evidence gathered are birth certificates (or other documented proof) which have not been available since the beginning of humanity/evolution of homo sapiens.

:In editing this, I would either suggest going all-in with the historical figures (regardless of whether or not people consider signed documents as the definitive age source), or to take them all out and rename the section the oldest people/men/women since the establishment of verifiable birth records.

== Oldest bishop ==

Bishop Juan Camargo Angulo +109 [[http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bcamargoa.html]]

List of oldest bishops, archbishops and cardinals [[http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najstarszy_%C5%BCyj%C4%85cy_biskup_katolicki]]

Polish wikipedia

:He died a mere 37 days before his 110th birthday: pity. Extremely sexy 14:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

==Age when oldest==

For those unfamiliar with it, if someone gets the 'oldest' title at 109 and dies at 112, then the range is 109-112. This is more scientific, as it shows the valleys as well as the peaks.→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 07:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

== Regis Philbin ==

I watched [[David Letterman]] saying that [[Regis Philbin]] now is the oldest person alive. I think this article should say something but it did not. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/201.21.200.24|201.21.200.24]] ([[User talk:201.21.200.24|talk]]) 11:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:Are you joking? [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 15:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::http://p206.ezboard.com/f247forumfrm1.showMessage?topicID=444.topic <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/137.139.161.25|137.139.161.25]] ([[User talk:137.139.161.25|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:::That's complete nonsense and not to be found. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 16:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

== A graph? ==

This article might be improved by adding a graph to it. I was thinking of one in the style of [http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=en.wikipedia.org the Netcraft uptime graphs], thus one with diagonal lines, so you can see when one person took over the title of oldest living person, and the age difference between different people.

I believe this can be done with EasyTimeline, but I doubt it will be easy. If I have more time, I might look into it. [[User:Cheezycrust|Cheezycrust]] 16:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea. A graph could provide a better and much faster comprehension of the tables. Would it be possible to represent the disputed cases (like Izumi) in another way than the fully validated ones? weko0013 21:33, 22 January 2007 (MET)

==Question on article==

The article has two names flagged with an *, but no description of the meaning. I believe the * is there because the people are still alive. I just think that if the names are going to be flagged there should be an explanation. (unsigned comment)

:Yes, so 114* = currently 114. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 01:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

== How many men have been the oldest living person? ==

[[Emiliano Mercado del Toro]] was the oldest living person for a short time. How many other men have been? [[User:203.109.240.93|203.109.240.93]] 13:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

:Just the one since at least 1986, and, if Izumi is discounted, even since 1968, my dear friend. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 14:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

::There were only five men who took the title "oldest living person in the world". If you count either Thomas Peters or Geert Adriaans Boomgaard, who are both Dutch men and are accepted by most demographic scholars as the first valiated supercentenarian, you have six men with the title "oldest living person in the world". <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/84.137.70.137|84.137.70.137]] ([[User talk:84.137.70.137|talk]]) 16:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:::And why do females live longer than males? [[User:58.168.194.22|58.168.194.22]] 23:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

::::Well, generally speaking, that is correct, although there are exceptions, as always, but to my knowledge there is no real reason for this, apart from wars (especially the First and Second World War) interfering (although Emiliano Mercado del Toro made it to 115), so this has yet to be explained thoroughly, since it still remains that way, dear friend. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 23:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that is incorrect. Females live longer than males due to biological reasons. The death rate for males is higher from conception to age 115. Even at 110 to 112, the death rate is still higher for males than females.

The preferred explanation is the XX theory, that women's second X serves as a backup system for the first. The X is far larger than the Y.

The fact that males are more likely to die in the womb indicates that even when environmental factors are removed, males still have a higher death rate. Hence, we can say that biological/genetic factors underlie greater female longevity, though factors such as violence and smoking make this difference greater.

Emiliano is NOT really an exception...he died at 115, seven years short of the female record.→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 17:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:Nor is Christian Mortensen for that matter, but in our country females are currently the highest group of smokers. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 21:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

== Near-future-supercentenarian ==

::George Francis from Sacramento was born June 6, 1897. In September (or October?) 2006 he was, as well as Ruby Mohammed, The Mother of the Nation of Islam, honored during the Fourth Annual Centenarian Celebration, hosted by the organization Take A Stand Against Elder Abuse and the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services’ Senior and Adult Services Division. The event was held at the Lions Gate Hotel and paid tribute to 30 locals who are at least 100 years old.

Link: http://www.sacobserver.com/community/071006/celebrating_centenarians.shtml (10.02.2007)

He may be older than you think. We have the 1900 census and other matches that confirm him to be born in June 1896. We're just waiting for someone from the family to contact www.grg.org.→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

:[[Leila Denmark]] is another possible future supercentenarian, having just turned 109 a month ago. She's also notable for her activities outside of her age.--'''[[User:HisSpaceResearch|h i s]]''' ''[[User talk:HisSpaceResearch|s p a c e]]'' '''[[Scot Young Research|r e s e a r c h]]''' 13:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

::I know: she was a great pediatrician or child doctor until she retired at the remarkable age of 102, but she is still giving help to parents, quite amazingly at her age. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 15:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have met Dr. Denmark in person. However, she is not within the top 250 persons yet. Please wait until 2008 at the earliest.→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 03:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

== Yone Minagawa ==

Can anyone confirm that she has died? I came onto the page and it had Edna Parker as the new title holder. I assumed that it was right and updated some of the other pages. I haven't found any sources but why would someone hoax this? [[User:Captain celery|Captain celery]] 11:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

:Perhaps it was just a vandal. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] 17:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it. Obviously nothing is sacred. People think it's OK to pretend that someone has died. She is 114 and we are probably all a bit morbid, but that's just not nice. [[User:87.194.21.35|87.194.21.35]] 21:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

== Hryhory Nestor ==

How many sources are necessary to add a name to this list? I came across an article today saying that a Hungarian man is the oldest person currently living at 115: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=29&art_id=nw20070212104132105C373930

--[[User:MattSBrrody|MattSBrrody]] 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

:We don't have an Hungarian contact, and their data aren't reliable, just like the Romanian ones aren't. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1503676,69,item.html (unsigned comment)

:And at http://svet.ihned.cz/c4-10030270-20496470-003100_d-za-mocnarstvi-se-na-ukrajine-zilo-nejlip too. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 12:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. You're free to add any case you want. It's just that if its unbelievable, it will get reverted fairly quickly.

Let me just say this is another hard-to-believe claim. He still walks at 115?→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

== No women table ==

There is an oldest man table, but not an oldest woman table: why? I think it should have one for each gender. (unsigned comment)

:Well, there is no need for since the overall table of oldest validated people ever already contains all these women, dear friend. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 12:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

== Henry Allingham ==

Henry Allingham's date of birth is 05/06/1896, so this needs correcting. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Cwkcom|Cwkcom]] ([[User talk:Cwkcom|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cwkcom|contribs]]) 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:Can you prove this with some citation? [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 15:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

==Question==

Where can I find a list that shows the 100 oldest people ever? (unsigned comment)

:Well: [http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html over here], my dear friend. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

==Reverts==

Bart, if someone adds a good edit to a bad one, then the good edit still has to go in order to restore the page. Please add the 'good edit' to the restored page.→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

:I already restored all good edits, Robert. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 15:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Katherine Plunkett wasn't 112! Your rvt deletes the 'protect' making the page vulnerable to vandalism.→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 19:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:That's one minor error to be corrected then, but the protection template must be placed by an administrator in order to work: otherwise, the vandalism would still be enabled. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 19:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

==List of the oldest people==

Your 'list of the oldest people' already goes down to 114, so clearly these aren't the same. Keeping the 115+ is probably a good idea. If you want to go down to 113 on the other page, why not?→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

:To begin with, it's not "my" list, since it has been compiled by someone else (please, do check the history of the article first), and, moreover, one shouldn't delete parts of an article without any concensus at all: a discussion is being held about this at its very own talk page, dear Robert. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 11:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, Bart, I was complaining about the DELETION of the 115+ list, so quit the 'friendly fire'.→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 02:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:I repeat: I DID NOT delete it (check it for once), and one mustn't delete any article without this consensus. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 15:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

== 110 year old man from Denver ==

I found this article: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5335950?source=rss from February 03, 2007. It is about Ruell Millar from Denver, USA. It is said in the article that he celebrated his 110th birthday "last Thursday", what means on February 01, 2007. Is Mr. Millar still alive today, and can his age be verified? He would be one day older than French doyen Aimé Avignon, and being therefore the 10th-oldest living man in the world. There is also this article: http://cbs4denver.com/watercooler/local_story_061075529.html

<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/84.137.103.149|84.137.103.149]] ([[User talk:84.137.103.149|talk]]) 19:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:Well: thanks for mentioning this case again, but it's already being investigated by Robert Young and his team in fact. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If he was still driving at the proven age of 109 years and 4 months, then that beats the record of 108 by Fred Hale. There was also the case of Layne Hall, who might have been 105 or 109, but I think he still died (and drove) younger than Mr Millar. [[User:87.194.21.35|87.194.21.35]] 04:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (Captain celery)

Greetings,

Just to correct, Mr Reuel Millar was born March 1, 1897, and therefore is YOUNGER than Aime Avignon. His age is verifiable but we are processing cases older than his first. Also, as for the 'oldest driver,' a record still needs to be applied for. If/when I come into contact with the family, I'll see if they are interested in breaking Fred Hale's record. By the way, Mr. Layne Hall was 105.

→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 02:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:"03/02/2007" is an American (instead of European) way of writing dates, so not Feb. 3rd, but March 2nd, hence the mistake, and his exact surname is subject to various written forms: "Reuel", "Ruell" and even "Rule", so, do you know what exactly is correct, Robert? [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 14:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

==Semi-protected?==

Bart, the 'semi-protected' status was to protect the article from edits by UNREGISTERED users, not to make it for admin's only. Do you understand now?→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:Robert, do pay attention, please, since, as I stated on my own talk page, it isn't REALLY SEMI-PROTECTED unless a moderator follows a certain procedure to protect it for real: everybody can tag it, but unless he is a moderator, also everybody can still edit it (i.e. including anonymous users), as with the article about [[Ted Kennedy]], and, by the way, I never said anything about administrators only being able to edit, but once again you don't read my comments as they are written, so I will prove my point by editing this very article as an anonymous user in due course, just watch it. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 15:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It says it doesn't allow anonymous users with LESS THAN 100 EDITS, so, please read again.→ [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>} 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:I tried to log in as an anonymous user, and couldn't, so luckily some administrator did in fact semi-protect it after all. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 21:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

==This is just annoying!==

There have been the same oldest living people for nearly two months! I hope that at least one of those people is dead before my birthday! <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Jc iindyysgvxc|Jc iindyysgvxc]] ([[User talk:Jc iindyysgvxc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jc iindyysgvxc|contribs]]) 06:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:You are so funny. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 15:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

::Why, thank you! [[User:Jc iindyysgvxc|Jc iindyysgvxc]] 03:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

:::I hope indeed you were just kidding? [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

:It is exciting when the leaders die and we have to update the list. But back in Dec/Jan they were dropping like flies and we were exhausted just trying to keep up with them, coming in danger of dying ourselves. It wasn't exciting anymore and we had hardly any time for arguing about semantics like date formats and time-zone issues. Even the vandals couldn't get a change in. Anyhow, the longer you have to wait for something the more dramatic it is. Like when [[Ian Paisley]] holds his first meeting with [[Gerry Adams]]. I hope old [[Yone Minagawa]] gets to 2008 before dying so that she will be 115 --[[User:Rye1967|Rye1967]] 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

::Speaking of which, whose side are you on exactly though, my dear friend? [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 14:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

:::I have emailed my answer as I don't want my personal political opinions documented on WP :) --[[User:Rye1967|Rye1967]] 15:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Okay: I hope to my Yahoo account. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 15:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What are the chances that at least one of them dies before my birthday? [[User:124.180.16.217|124.180.16.217]] 08:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

:When is it? [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 15:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

::11 days after you. [[User:124.180.16.217|124.180.16.217]] 09:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Being May 13th? [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK: Florence Finch died Apr. 10 2007, the next day. 'Happy' now? [[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 04:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:I suppose he is, but I'm not. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 12:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

== Gertrude Baines ==

Age currently listed as 112 years and "351" days. But it is only 4 (actually 3 here in New Zealand!) days till her birthday. Perhaps someone could correct this? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/203.184.34.40|203.184.34.40]] ([[User talk:203.184.34.40|talk]]) 01:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

: I just corrected it. Thanks for pointing out. [[User:Mhwu|Mhwu]] 06:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

== Spanish Supercentenarian in the late 19th century? ==

In the "list of Centenarians" under "Relative of someone well-known", someone listed the Duchess of Dúrcal, wife of José Ramón Rodil y Campillo, a spanish general and statesman. She is listed as born in 1788 (her husband was born in 1789, so her birthyear seems right). But the year she died is said to be 1901! So she would have been 112 or 113. Could that be right? That would mean, she was the oldest woman in the world at the time of her death. Many age records would have been broken earlier (first 112h birthday, etc.). I could not find something on the internet about her, except this listing on wikipedia. {{unsigned|84.137.122.210}}

Hello anonymous! I guess you didn't type your signature as 4 tildes (~). Funny, her name is mentioned twice in only 2 Wikipedia articles. Google searching her name, lists just the 2 Wikipedia pages. Could such a person be that anonymous? Well, I'm guessing her name has an alternate spelling. As her name isn't even mentioned in her husband's Wikipedia page..oh. If she isn't mentioned outside of Wikipedia, then..well, Wikipedia is a collection of outside sources. I guess we could try to search her name in other such engines as well. As far as being the oldest person in the world at the time of her death, that would be true. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 15:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

==Martha Graham dispute==

Greetings,

Although Martha Graham wouldn't be verified by today's standards, her case was included in Guinness in the 1980's. Note the James Henry Brett Jr case is more likely to be false than the Martha Graham case is. That's why with Graham we use 'c' (i.e., about) and with the Brett case a ? (indicating age called into question).[[User:64.175.33.52|64.175.33.52]] 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as a footnote. I have the Guinness 1973, 1975, and 1981 edition. Under the oldest authenticated people by country, for the United States, Guinness listed a 113 year-old woman, from 1928 (1981 edition). Then, as a footnote, which listed other disputed cases, did they list Martha Graham. If you wanted to list Martha Graham, you might as well list all the other footnotes, no? I can take a picture of the Guinness pages. I don't have the 1959 or 1960 edition, so I don't know if she was crowned valid at the time. But nevertheless, she is not in the official tables but only as a footnote in later editions. You won't see her mentioned in today's Guinness editions, because that title goes to the undisputed 119 year-old Sarah Knauss of 1999, so, if there were any footnotes (per country), it would list dispusted U.S. cases of people older than the 119 year-old Sarah Knauss. Martha Graham was only listed when the oldest authenticated U.S. birth was younger than her, such as in the case of the verified 113 year-old Delina Filkins of 1928. Then, Guinness claims their only source of evidence of her was just the 1900 census. I suppose that's only significant just because Guinness mentions her? [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 16:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Neal, try the 1987 or 1988 editions, they did list Martha Graham in the main section. They also moved Thomas Peters up from the footnotes. Whether this was a good idea or not, it did occur.[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 04:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:So, she is validated, correct? [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then, looks like Guinness received additional evidence in 1987! Maybe you can share with us what that is. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 16:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I already told you, I wrote Guinness a letter suggesting that, even if 'only' 114 1/2 as the footnote said (instead of 117 or 118 as claimed) that she would still be older than the authenticated recordholder. This was 1986. I was 12. Needless to say, the very next edition, Guinness did exactly as I suggested. I didn't know at the time, however, that the 'only' 114 came from the 1900 census. The 'only' 114 claim came from A. Ross Eckler, Jr (born 1927) who I have since corresponded with, so now I know the source of the case. The bottom line: Guinness accepted the case as valid in 1987, but it wouldn't pass today's standards.[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 08:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow. Telling Guinness that 114.5 is greater than 113 must be a good reason for Guinness to add! Anyways, you regret to ever contacting Guinness about that when you were 12, so I presume you still find the case significant to be on Wikipedia's tables?

Just because Guinness for that reason decides to add Martha Graham to their tables in the 1987 edition, does that make her case any more valid? So Guinness, for that reason, decides to add Martha Graham to their table in their 1987 edition. How does that make her case any more substantial? A lot of you people probably think Guinness is the 'God' of answers. Regardless of whether Martha Graham is in the Guinness book or not, Guinness did say their source is her 1900 census of a claimed 1844 birth. Well, if you have a 60s year-old woman her first birth certificate, no serious demographic scholar would consider that as a substantial proof of evidence. So, the 1900s census saying this person is 63 years old would be...well, the same. How would this make any difference if Guinness accepts here? Some of you may remember Guinness awarding Amy Hulmes the title, the oldest person in the world, even though Guinness knew about Maud-Farris Luse. They gave it to Amy Hulmes anyways since she claimed to have a life of drinking Guinness, despite giving it to Maud-Farris Luse later. Why would Guinness do such a thing like that, I asked. I suppose adding a name to the table, "This is Guinness's official tables," would be something to resolve this issue as it would cause less confusion, so people can decide for themselves if Guinness is right or not. Robert Young did remind me that Guinness is an entertainment purpose, so to follow Guinness as a Bible of answers would be..

Some of you people probably thought Martha Graham should be mentioned because she is in the 2005 edition of the table of the oldest persons in the world, since 1955. However, Guinness did not make that table, Robert Young did. The tables didn't mention Elizabeth Kensley or Hannah Smith. Elizabeth Kensley was in the 1965 edition and Hannah Smith was in the 1967 edition. But Robert Young didn't have or see the 1965 or 1967 edition, so, he didn't know about them, thus, they weren't in the table he submitted to Guinness. This is Guinness giving Robert the full faith. Why didn't Guinness make their own table? Well, for 1 thing, that would be too intelligent. It doesn't seem as if Guinness kept their own records (since they have a lot of other stuff to store). It doesn't seem Guinness can reproduce their old verions anyways. Guinness 2006 didn't have an oldest validated person entry, because the person in charge of that resigned/retired, so Robert Young was hired to replace him. Therefore, he says, how was he supposed to know about a 1967 case if he didn't have the edition and wasn't around at the time? Well, obviously, the tables would then have listed the '2nd oldest person in the world,' so, hopefully, those aren't in our tables either. If the person before Robert has been with Guinness at the start in 1955, then I suppose he would be the person to ask. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neal, to be more correct, the table for the 2005 edition did appear in the 2005 edition...regardless of who made it. Also, Mr. Epstein 'contributed.' To avoid controversy, I agreed to include the Martha Graham case as well as Marie Bernatkova. The problems I have with these cases are mainly that there is a missing date of birth or a missing date of death. However, Mr. Epstein continues to list them. I don't list them on my WOP tables but here, we want CONSENSUS on the Guinness tables. Therefore I support keeping Martha Graham as currently listed. If you choose to make your own listing on your own private page, so be it.

Second, 1900-1844=56, not 60-something. Also, the evidence does suggest this woman was over 110, based on the ages of the children. Right now I'm not sure where the original research went but I know that Mr. Eckler (born 1927) has it, so I can check. Note we keep Mr. Izumi not because we believe it, but because that is the standard, right or wrong. It's sort of like a call in a basketball game, or a baseball batting title. The standard, while not perfect, is better than no standard at all. If we drop the Guinness standard, there will be nothing to prevent a deluge of false cases from sweeping in, like the '116-year-old' Mexican man. Note also that the Martha Graham case is a 'grandfathered' case. That means it got in, but the standards of today wouldn't allow it in...sort of like a Hall of Famer elected in an old format. You don't take them out of the hall when a new format begins.[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 00:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: to Bart Versieck:

Bart Versieck wrote: "then you ought to delete all other disputed cases listed as well, but you didn't, okay"

Actually Bart, using the division fallacy isn't a good reason to justify any one individual case. Now, I'm presuming you implied that I didn't undo all the less-validated cases, so, if I did, that would have been kept, but I only did 1, so that has to be reverted. And it is from this idea, that you assume that the less-validated cases are "equally less-substantial." And I would like to point to you that that isn't the case.

From your logic, if I removed Martha Graham, I would also have to remove Carrie C. White and Shigechiyo Izumi, etc., and that would be the case if they were equally disputed, but it isn't. Shigechiyo Izumi was disputed because someone in Japan found another Shigechiyo Izumi born 15 years later, that had a birth certificate. That doesn't make the older Shigechiyo Izumi's birth certificate any less valid, just causes more confusion. Say there were 3 John Smith's born in the same city in the U.S. in the 1990s (different date of birth). Individually, assuming you didn't know their SSN, their date of birth are all equally non-disputed. It is only when you want to differentiate 1 John Smith from another, would you have a probability problem of differentiating which John Smith from which. Again, that doesn't cause a dispute on the individual level. Shigechiyo Izumi's birth certificate can be considered partially disputed for the fact that he was born before 1868, and since there's another person with the same name born 15 years later, that adds to the probability factor of determining 1 Shigechiyo Izumi from the other. Guinness wants reliability on individual birth records. If someone reported to Guinness that S. Izumi's birth certificate was false, that would be news to them. But Guinness was only reported that someone else has a birth certificate with the same name but different year, and potentially a relative, which is a somewhat different case. Now, I was told earlier by IP address that the Martha Graham case is more believable than the James Henry Brett, Jr. case. That I didn't research - I just know Martha Graham was listed once in the 1900 census at age ~56. As for Carrie C. White, her first census was the 1900 census, which stated 1889 (and being born in November, she probably wasn't born in time to make it to the 1890 census 2 months later?). The rest goes to case with how substantial her medical records are stating 1874 birth that got her in the Guinness book, and that I don't know. Anyways Robert, I did not know about her children, perhaps you can share her descendants lineage in WOP groups sometime. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 16:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

:Well: there really are even more reasons not to list both of them, plus Anicita Butariu and Kamato Hongo than for Graham. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well I hope you can list those reasons! As for Anitica Butariu and Kamato Hongo, the nursing home that Anitica lived in has evidence that she moved in at the year (age 82), so they have records that she lived there for 33 years. So, if she wasn't 115, and marginally younger, then, yeah... And if you read Robert Young's WOP post some years ago, you'd know there is strong evidence that Kamato Hongo is over 110. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 14:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Neal, I think Bart is right. It's like a call by a referee, it usually stands historically unless there's overwhelming evidence to overturn it. In reality, the James Henry Brett Jr case is the worst...he almost certainly was 96. With the Izumi and White cases, the age hinges on identity. The Izumi case is weaker than you want to believe. Notably, Guinness claims that the original evidence that led to acceptance is now 'lost'. So, we don't know what led them to accept the case in 1978. The Graham case is more like Anitica Butariu...evidence favors the age claimed, but we don't have early-life documentation. With Kamato Hongo, most experts agree she was over 110, but probably younger than 116 (one theory is that her age was changed to cover up a teenage pregancy...her first child was born in 1909, but she didn't marry until 1914). In all cases, where scientific opinion deviates from the Guinness list, we use italics to show that the case is disputed.[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 06:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Except it doesn't matter as much whether Guinness keeps their records. For example, if Guinness never obtained or seen Shigechiyo Izumi's birth certificate, then we can assume we don't know how he got accepted. If they did have Shigechiyo Izumi's birth certificate, but they threw it away 100 years later, how would his case be any less substantial 100 years later? Etc. That gets thrown in with the Japanese-government claim of their first census in 1871 3 years after their revolution. As for James Henry Brett, Jr., I'd like to know how many censuses say what birth year he was born, and how many didn't (for my own curiosity). [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(Continued). Okay, I looked at the James Henry Brett, Jr. article. Woop dee doo. A 1930 census comes into question despite being born in 1849. That's when he was 81 years old. I imagine the earlier censuses are more relevant, unless you assume the later ones are more accurate. So that's '1' census that marks him as dispute, and do you weigh that in with all the early ones? And this is compared to only 1 census for both Martha Graham and Carrie C. white, where the 1900 census claims their birth record? If the 1910, 1920, and 1930 census are more relevant, what do they say for Martha Graham? Or Carrie C. White? [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

==Adding Unvalidated Cases==

Please refrain from adding unvalidated cases to the lists. Unvalidated cases can be added to the [[longevity claims]] page. That's what it's there for.[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 08:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

==Use of "Official"==

The use of "official" is SUPPOSED to be subjective. Some authority chose these cases but not others. Like a referee...right most of the time, but not all of the time. Do the lists represent my best guess as to who is really the oldest person? NO. They represent who was CHOSEN to be the world's oldest person, oldest man, etc.[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

:>>The use of "official" is SUPPOSED to be subjective.

::The word 'official' isn't a subjective term and leads readers to believe that the list isn't subjective at all.

:>>Like a referee...right most of the time, but not all of the time.

::Ofcourse, but that goes without saying.

:>>Do the lists represent my best guess as to who is really the oldest person?

::Yes, it is the best and most authoritive guess that we currently have. Nothing is for certain, especially hard to verify claims such as these.

:>>They represent who was CHOSEN to be the world's oldest person, oldest man, etc.

::Exactly. But that doesn't make it official to everyone.

::I personally think the use of the word 'official' on these sections is biased since the word asserts that it has authority over other lists. Although if it said "Guinness' Official", or just "List of" I wouldn't object. --[[User:Android Mouse|Android Mouse]] 00:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, are you aware that when you reverted my edits you also reverted the edits of a few other editors after me? --[[User:Android Mouse|Android Mouse]] 00:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that if you had left the list alone as-is, that wouldn't have happened? If you want to make a major, controversial change you should discuss it first on the talk page.[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 05:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:I don't really see the few slight rewording of the section names as being major or even controversial change. Even if it was a major, controversial change, that is perfectly fine. I'd advise you to take a look at [[WP:BRD]]. --[[User:Android Mouse|Android Mouse]] 05:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

>Some authority chose these cases but not others.

:So there's an example of ambiguity.

>Like a referee...right most of the time, but not all of the time.

:Then it isn't "official."

You are missing the point. If there is a hypothetical absolute truth, then a very good referee will have a close approximation to that absolute truth but never be 100% perfect. Hence, I like the word 'official.' "List of" is too weak: anyone can make a list any way they want to.[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 05:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

>Do the lists represent my best guess as to who is really the oldest person? NO. They represent who was CHOSEN to be the world's oldest person, oldest man, etc.

:And someone has to decide that. (Someone/body of official status?). Anyways, I think we better find a better word. Or simply clarify more, particularly starting with the words "List of validated..." [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 04:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has existed just fine for over a year without this silly dispute. It should stay as-is.[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:That's not really how wikipedia was designed to work. --[[User:Android Mouse|Android Mouse]] 05:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's called 'concensus.' Also, last I checked, referees were also called 'officials.' But that doesn't mean their call is always right. It merely means they are the experts that decide. I'm sorry if you couldn't figure that out.[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 13:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

==Vandalism Again==

What could be more fun for teenage boys than to change a few 'oldest' numbers 'sneakily' or, worse, add their own name in? Aside from the fact that they are sadly mistaken about not getting caught...this is one of the most heavily-monitored article groups...wouldn't it be easier on everyone to make the ban on anonymous edits semi-permanent? Should we really be wasting our time as 'babysitters' for these pages?[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 13:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

:Robert, this is actually a pointless message. If you look around, vandalism happens everywhere on Wikipedia. Being all over on Wikipedia, I virtually see vandalism on every article I been to. Is there a point to announcing vandalism in the talk page of every article that has vandalism? I vote this message to deletetion. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 14:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

:Are you suggesting the page be semi-protected? If not there's probably a better place to discuss vandalism in general. --[[User:Android Mouse|Android Mouse]] 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

==New Page:Unconfirmed oldest people==

I'm considering writing a page [[Unconfirmed oldest people]]. Basically, everyone currently on the '''Oldest people''' list has lived in the era of modern record-keeping. However, we only have suppositions and indirect claims for people born before modern records were as ubiquitous as they are today. The page would include historical and mythological figures, as the distinction is fuzzy at best. Thoughts? [[User:Samwaltz|samwaltz]] 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

We already have [[longevity claims]] and [[longevity myths]]. Longevity claims are those that are within the realm of scientific possibility (115-130) and longevity myths are those outside the realm of scientific possiblity (130+). Add away on those pages, if you wish...NOT HERE!!![[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 12:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

*"Claims" are claims that are not proven. "Myths" are claims that have been proven to be wrong. Since a lot of stuff hasn't been proven that are on the "myths" page, I think they should be moved over to the claims page. I think there should be an article for claims that have been proven wrong ([[Longevity Myths]]), an article for longitivity claims that have not been proven ([[Longevity claims]]) and an article for claims that have yet to be proven and are in the time period in which records are available (like the suggested [[Unconfirmed oldest people]] article.) For example, the Biblical account of people living over 900 years old has been ''claimed'' but '''not''' proven. If it is not proven, it is not a myth, but a claim. If someone was born in 1885, for example, and claims to be living in 2007, and hasn't been recogonized by Guiness or have any records available, this person would be placed on the [[Unconfirmed oldest people]] article. Once anything is actually proven to be wrong, they can be placed on the [[Longevity myths]] article. -[[User:AMK152|<font color="blue">A</font><font color="green">M</font><font color="red">K</font><font color="orange">1</font><font color="aqua">5</font><font color="gray">2</font>]]^{([[User talk:AMK152|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AMK152|Contributions]] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AMK152&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new Send message])} 18:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

AMR, Your idea as presently presented is very, very bad and appears to be a back-door attempt to sneak religion into a scientific discussion. What we currently have are:

A. Oldest People...claims to age 110+ (or oldest living if earlier eras) that have been scientifically validated.

B. Longevity claims...unvalidated claims (unconfirmed) within the realm of scientific possibility, but more likely to be false than true

C. Longevity myths...claims that are scientifically impossible to be true, and are advanced for religious (mythical) reasons.

The Methuselah claim is a lonevity myth. To try to say that the Methuselah story is "not a myth, but a claim" is akin to saying "evolution is only a theory, not a fact." The FACT of the matter is, even the Bible says "not to give heed to confusing myths and genealogies" and it should be noted that the extreme ages claimed for the early Biblical patriarchs were meant to be taken allegorically, not literally. For example, Methuselah means "when he dies, it will come" (the flood). God's letting Methuselah live to the oldest age ever showed that God had given man every chance to repent of his sin before judgment came. It also shows that since a day of the Lord is as a thousand years, and "in that day you will surely die," therefore Methuselah had to die at less than 1,000 years for the Biblical propechies to be fulfilled. None of this has anything to do with the proven human life span. It's like saying "the oldest elf from Lord of the Rings is 3,000 years old." The realms of science fiction and religion are totally outside the realm of modern-day scientific inquiry.[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Note also that one need not debunk a 'claim' to age 150. Since it is scientifically impossible, it is untrue by definition. No need to check. Only claims within 115-130 years (the twilight of possiblity) really need to be checked.[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>} 03:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

:But, has the the ages of of these Biblical people been proven false? No. "It can't be proven, so it's false" is not true. Calling it a myth affends people. If someone in a fictional story lives a very long time, that's fiction, not non-fiction. If the Bible is fiction, I want to see proof. The Biblical people's longevity are not myths, but unproven claims. Perhaps we could have two pages:

*[[Longevity myths]] - Longitivity myths that ''have been actually '''proven''''' to be false.

*[[Unconfirmed oldest people]] - Broken down into modern claims, and claims from long ago that are ''unconfirmed'', hence the name of the article.

Unless new research has proven the Biblical ages to be false, they don't belong in Longevity ''myths.'' -[[User:AMK152|<font color="blue">AMK152</font>]]^{([[User talk:AMK152|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AMK152|Contributions]] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AMK152&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new Send message])} 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

USER AMK152, you once again confirmed that your problem here is that you are trying to mix 'religion' with science. This is Wikipedia, not the Bible. It is written for everyone, not just Christians. Also, you misunderstand a lot of concepts.

First: a myth need not be proven false to be a myth. Do we need to prove that Zeus doesn't exist to call ancient Greek stories of gods myths? Of course not. In fact, the whole point of religion is that you cannot prove it false, because it is not based on science but on 'faith' or 'belief.' In other words, you can always believe what you will no matter what I say. However, that is your belief; it is not general, common knowledge. Second, some people have misinterpreted the use of the word 'myth'. Go back to [[myth]]. The use here is more a mixture of the first and second than simply the second. The story of Methuselah is a story intended to explain things, such as God was merciful and waited a long time before sending the Flood.

Third, there are stories in Hindu mythology that claim ages such as 24,000 years. To pick out just Judeo-Western cultural stories is discrimination.

Fourth, the whole purpose of this article has to do with modern times.

Fifth, we can infer than any claim to age 150 or greater ever made has been false, as it has never been demonstrated that a human being can survive more than 122 years...if you knew the odds of surviving to 969 (age 120 is 10 billion to 1. Now times 10 billion by 849 to get your odds) then you wouldn't even be raising this issue.[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 10:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:It is not just Scientists who read Wikipedia. Just because someone lived to 122 doesn't mean that is the limit. The thing that bothers me is calling Biblical people's ages 'myths'. The Bible mentions 30 people who lived past 122. At least 9 of those people were under age 150. I looked at ''A myth, in popular use, is something that is widely believed but false'' on the [[myth]] article, says that a myth is something that is false. I read those definitions and it basically says that a myth is something that is false, but a myth is a legendary story, but a myth is soemthing that is false, but myth = false. So, if these longevitys are called "myths" and myths are said to be "false," but some people say that these longevitys are true, others disagree. Also, if "myths" are referred to "religious stories" how can this be neutral? I know that these ages are for modern times. Simply because "Scientists" don't have enough "proof" of longevitys of long ago. They are not myths. Probability is not a factor here. So, stuff that hasn't been proven are not myths/false. Stuff that have been proven wrong are myths. In order to nuetralize the situation [[Longevity myths]] has to be renamed. But to what? -[[User:AMK152|<font color="blue">AMK152</font>]]^{([[User talk:AMK152|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AMK152|Contributions]] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AMK152&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new Send message])} 01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words: "Moses lived to 120" is a [[longevity claim]] because it is possible to be true, if unproven. "Methuselah lived to 969" is a [[longevity myth]] because there is no doubt, scientifically, that such an age is false from a literal standpoint, but still may be seen as an allegorical or representative age.[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 15:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So essentially you're saying that the word "myth" has to be blotted out of existence, just to satisfy your admittedly unscientific, religious viewpoint? I think not.[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::A "myth" is something that is "false." These biblical longevitys are not false; they are unproven, except for the Bible. In other words, these longevitys are not myths; perhaps an article can be dedicated to religious longevity. Did you know that the word "claim," "claims," "claimed", etc. are mentioned 57 times in the [[Longevity myths]] article, excluding the top sentence, template, and "disclaimer" link at the bottom of the page? And did you know that "myth" is mentioned only 10 times throughout the '''entire''' article? -[[User:AMK152|<font color="blue">AMK152</font>]]^{([[User talk:AMK152|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AMK152|Contributions]] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AMK152&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new Send message])} 01:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Longevitys" isn't even a word in English. Should you be presenting yourself as an expert when you can't even spell or use the word "longevity" correctly?

Also, scientifically most religious beliefs are false...it is only due to societal pressure that rational-minded people are forced to accept such irrational concepts as flying bunnies, idol sacrifices, etc. Because many choose to maintain the fiction of religion (i.e. religion is the 'drug' of the masses because the intellectual answer, that we will die, is simply not what most people want to hear) or even tradition, you'll see things like Santa Claus on the evening news. That doesn't mean Santa exists. One reason religion should not be mixed up with this is the issue of corruption, longevity has no meaning and is irrelevant if defined by what we want to believe. After all, Jesus promised eternal life, so by that definition, the 'world's oldest person' (aside from Jesus, who is also God the Father) would be the first person who believed in Jesus (and is thus still alive today).[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 04:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

<i>"Just because someone lived to 122 doesn't mean that is the limit." </i>

:Um, no one said anything about 122 (122.45) being the limit. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 14:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that the [[Methuselah]] myth is false according to scientific standards. OK? From a secular viewpoint, the story is only important from a mythical perspective, which it is...a story made up to explain something then not understood.

Today, with modern scientific methods, we can say with certainty that even though age 122.45 may not be an unbreakable record, it is a stretch to even consider '150' a remote possibility.

As for your comment about the word counts in the longevity myths article...the article is still organized mainly according to the ideation of the longevity myth, whereas the longevity claims article is organized mainly according to the examples of longevity claims (with a short ideation section).

For example, if [[Cruz Hernandez]] claimed to be 128, that's a [[longevity claim]] because it's unproven, but also her age does not carry with it religious connotation or is used to support that (although it was used for [[nationalist]] mythmaking). The story of [[Methuselah]] is not only unproven on modern scientific standards, but it is used as a longevity myth.[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

==[[List of centenarians]]==

On [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_centenarians#Relative_of_someone_well-known this article], there is a person who is said to have lived from 1788 - 1901. Could someone confirm this? Or is this a mistake? -[[User:AMK152|<font color="blue">A</font><font color="green">M</font><font color="red">K</font><font color="orange">1</font><font color="aqua">5</font><font color="gray">2</font>]]^{([[User talk:AMK152|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AMK152|Contributions]] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AMK152&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new Send message])} 18:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

:Do me a favor. Read this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oldest_people#Spanish_Supercentenarian_in_the_late_19th_century.3F [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

==2 of top 12 men die in a week==

Elias Wen died on the 8th but I only found out when he was removed today. I have added Aarne Arvonen. Frank Scarrabelotti would have been tied for 10th but he died yesterday. In the grand scheme of things it isn't important but it would have been nice for him to be up for a few days. Shows how fast things can change. It does avoid arguments about whether alphabetical order or timezone (if they had those in the 1890s) should take precident. Henry Allingham beats George Francis on both counts in 3rd, and his case came to notice first aswell, but there was no such distiction between Arvonen and Scarrabelotti, and the other two criteria clash. It may be a long time before the same problem arises again, but something to discuss.

Another debate will be top 10 or 110+. It says top 10 which is why I thought Arvonen needed to be added. And if it was 110+ we could get a spate of 110 year old men and have to add all of them, which seems worse than adding one man who'll be 110 in two months. I know it seems unlikely that there is a 6 month gap after Aime Avignon - the same gap as between Tanabe and Nakanishi. Ruell Millar would have been there if he hadn't died. I remember before the Francis, Wen and Tseien cases were added, another was put into 10th place, born around May 97. If this was accurate and that man is still alive then please add him, or indeed anyone else - Arvonen can wait his turn. Otherwise, it looks like it has to be him. [[User:87.194.248.174|87.194.248.174]] 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

::What about Ronnie Fairbanks from the USA. He was born on May 29, 1897 and celebrated his 109th birthday last year. I did neither find something about his death, nor an information about his 110th birthday. If he is still alive today he would be older then Arvonen.

That's the one. Hopefully someone will be able to say if he is alive or not. [[User:163.1.42.59|163.1.42.59]] 22:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

:::I already asked at "WOP", but no answer yet. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He was last confirmed alive in May 2006.[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

==Really (NOT) oldest==

If you do a research on Chechnya, there were or are at least two woman who are 125 years, but do they have enough evidence to prove their age? It's possible and it needs to be deeply investigated asap! {{unsigned|66.99.1.237}}

No, no, no! These cases are false. End of message.[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why...you may go ahead and investigate them, and show us the evidence. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 05:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

==Autoupdating vs. Daily Updating==

To the MORON who keeps attempting to replace the auto-updating formula with a date that needs to be updated daily: do you really want to update something 365 days a year when the computer does it for you?[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:Your name calling is getting worse as we speak: calling someone "AN IDIOT" or "A MORON" is not the way to do it: addressing people this way isn't being polite at all, but I guess we don't have to expect some decent behaviour from you at all, which has become more and more clear to me, having read and seen lots of messages from you at this website. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 03:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:Dear Extremely sexy, I fully agree on what you said! Robert's writing is becoming more and more aggressive and even insulting (as in the above case). His merits in gerontlogy research are doubtlessly considerable but this is NOT a legitimation to treat others in a most disrespectful way! {{unsigned|89.85.156.75}}

::Thanks for agreeing with me: I also told him this several times in a lot of emails, plus on my talk page yesterday. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 11:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Hmm.. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 05:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade is honest. Let me ask...can anyone discuss something SUBSTANTIVE here? Please explain why replacing an auto-update with a manual one is an 'improvement'--or am I missing something here?[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Note I didn't go for the name-calling until the reverts were done several times without explanation. If name-calling is what it takes to get one's attention, then it is worth it. NOT explaining forked-editing is the worst thing you can possibly do. The key to solving a problem starts with identifying it. Notably, the person who wrote what they did is using an anonymous, unidentified IP address. Hence, how can I be biased against an IP address? I can, however, recognize stupidity when I see it.

Is it not true that Japanese martial-arts experts, and even Confucius himself, castigated students for poor learning, even calling them 'fools'...so name-calling, if it leads one to THINK for a moment, is a redeemable art. I have not ventured into the realm of the profane or unwarranted name-calling, but only toward those with a long pattern of abusive editing. Abusive editing includes things such as not compromising and not explaining one's position, especially when an edit is controversial.

Also, I use name-calling not for the mere purpose of calling one a name, but in an if-then supposition that should lead one to see the error of their ways. Perhaps, however, I could be a bit more oblique: instead of calling one a name, I should state a third-person hypothetical: "Only a fool would want to manually edit a date 365 days a year, when a computer-generated bot could automatically do all the work for free." Would removing the direct finally open one's eyes? Finally, I note that although Bart disagrees with my personality, he agrees with the autoupdating feature...which is why he didn't mention it.

[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 20:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievably, people continue to try to replace the auto-updating feature with a manual update that must be changed 365 days/year. This is illogical, and it will not stand. So don't try it.[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 21:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

==Last Person Born in the 18th Century?==

I think it'd be cool if on this page, as well as the [[List of notable last events]], if someone could find who the last person was to be born in the 18th century. I see one pre-1950's centenarian that was born in the 18th and lived till the very early 20th, could she be the last? I'm trying to research it myself, but does anyone else know or have any suggestions? [[User:V8americanpower|V8americanpower]] 15:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:A man in France was born on December 31, 1899, 21:50. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::The 18th century (this is an example of something that is true despite being not-so-obvious) is the time from 1700-1799; the day you mentioned was the last day of the 19th century. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] 19:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

:Oh, you meant 1700s. That was very well probably Sophia Wijnberg. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 19:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::Georgia guy, I just answered his question in the above comment. But I guess you didn't know the 2 comments were made both by me. Or you were just ignorant and decided to correct a mistake I already realized. That's okay. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 23:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Hmm, it seems that your comment was made 2 minutes after my correction comment. Now I will assume there is the possibility you were looking at this page for more than 2 minutes before seeing my post and replying. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] 23:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the 18th century was from 1701 to 1800...that's why it's the '18th' century. I do know a man born in 1800 died in 1909.[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 01:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont want to get that whole old "when does a century begin" debate going, so I'll take the elementary approach to it. Who was the last person born in a year that began with a 17? OK? I can find noone after Sophia Wijnberg, so I'm beginning to think she's the sole survivor of the 18th century. I think that makes her worthy of a page, eh? [[User:V8americanpower|V8americanpower]] 01:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)