Talk:Mathew Beard

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• List of the verified oldest people
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:List of the verified oldest people

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Merge, 3 November 2018, see discussion.
delete, December 15 2007, see discussion.

Longevity High‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity articles
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Biography

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Please don't delete this article

He was retroactively the World's oldest person at the time of his death. That's extremely notable. The Izumi case has now been discredited and removed. Futurist110 (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the "scare quotes"?

This article is horribly written. Why are there scare quotes around "married" and "drunk driving"? He either was or wasn't married. This should be verifiable via records (in which case they should be cited) or a statement can be made that the marriage cannot be verified, and you can cite whatever source you have for the unverifiable claim. In neither case does "married" need scare quotes. Ditto for "drunk driving". Either it can be verified, or you can dig up a citation of someone making the claim. The scare quotes are completely unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.132.35 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest verified person ever

See Talk:Oldest_people#Oldest_verified_person_ever.Alekksandr (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen so many questions

There are so many alleged and claimed in this article you wonder if he even existed. Why all this? Legacypac (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snooping around the 110 club suggests not everyone believes he was 114 and his story kept changing or something. Could definitely use a re-write since the GRG list his age as "verified". But I don't really see much that isn't present in the chronological list of section in Oldest people. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he existed...news reports, census records, marriage records, and Social Security records together confirm that yes, this man existed. The thing is, he told a LOT of tall tales - such as building a house at age 103 all on his own, except the roof, which he let his kids put on (more likely THEY built most of it and HE put the roof on, i.e. the inverse), and being arrested for drunk driving at age 90. The Kestenbaum study, conducted by the Social Security Administration, investigated claims to supercentenarian status that allegedly reached 110 between 1980 and 2000. This case was verified by the study, but the verification wasn't as good as with other cases...the 1880 census match used to verify his age contained a nickname, and between 1880 and 1912 there is no trace of him, and again from 1912 to 1930. As his son of the same name died before him, an identity switch (i.e. Beard Sr. died but his death wasn't reported, and Beard Jr. took on the identity of his father) can be ruled out. Beard was a preacher who appears to have been a celebrity in his town (Royal, Florida). The GRG accepted all Kestenbaum cases that were deemed authenticated by the study's standards...but a few, mostly paper errors, have since been withdrawn.

In 2011, the GRG accidentally omitted this case from Table B (the verified list), but in 2012 the error was fixed and he was restored. So this case really was verified in 2003.

The bottom line: This man's verification isn't as solid as most other cases, but it's not dubious. 104.56.23.57 (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]