Talk:Guinness World Records

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guinness World Records article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Where is Guinness World records Museum at Surfers Paradise 2 Doctor Who is the longest running sci fi 3 Guy who eats planes: lol 4 Miscellaneous record breakers 5 First edition 6 Timing 7 That plant 8 Easy records 9 Screenshot of dodgy break this record 10 Budapest isn't in Romania 11 Different editions, grossly different styles 12 Page move 13 Citation needed 14 The Simpsons 15 Scantily clad women 16 Merging in Beer Drinking Records 17 Edits by 24.106.226.44 18 External Links 19 Ethical Concerns 20 A guy ironing? Really? 21 RE: Doctor Who vs. Stargate 22 Chain letters 23 References 24 Merge from Features of Guinness World Records Books 25 Rarest plant in the world? 26 Reliability questions 27 Shortest river? 28 See also 29 Museums section unsourced 30 web site reorganization 31 Representatives from Guinness 32 Error on the page... could someone please correct it? 33 Drinking 10.000 ml of beer? 34 i'm wondering 35 Pint Sized Book of Records

[edit] Where is Guinness World records Museum at Surfers Paradise

Last time I went to surfers I did not see any adverts for Guinness World records Museum please provide me with UBD map listing of this Museum? if you refer to Ripleys Believe it or not! than you should list all the Believe it or not! Museums around the world. Adding Surfers paradise to this Wiki is FALSE INFORMATION either list ALL Ripley's or retract Surfers paradise of the list as there is not a Guinness World records Museum at Surfers Paradise (unsigned comment)

[edit] Doctor Who is the longest running sci fi

Just found out that Guiness World Records does not consider Doctor Who to be the longest running sci fi TV series and awarded to Stargate SG-1 instead. Their justification is that Doctor Who had long production breaks. Even if that is the case SG-1 is nowhere near being the longest running sci fi. Otherwise they are idiots running things at Guinness.--Rachel Mules 05:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

slightly in error actually, The Guiness Book of world Records does list Doctor Who as the "longest running science fiction TV series". It lists Stargate SG-1 as the "longest running science fiction TV series (consecutive)". Doctor Who's 695 episodes between 1963 and 1989 surely make it the longest running "consecutive" SF TV series as well though? Or do Guiness not consider at least one series per year to be "consecutive"? Bob Steele 16:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the BBC website "there will be an exciting development to this story later in the week". Bob Steele 14:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guy who eats planes: lol

my friend and i were talking and he dont belive theres a guy in guiness who eats planes. lol and i was wondering if you guys could tell me his name so i can prove it to him thanks (unsigned comment)

Hi! Serious. You can read about him at [1] and [2]. In the 2006 book (pp26-27) it states that "he has consumed ... a Cessna light aircraft". Personally, I am sceptical about the claims about this guy. GWR may have hyped them for thir entertainment value. I do not think they have been verified beyond all suspicion. Viewfinder 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA Imagine telling a girl at a bar that you eat planes for a living! Excellent!! --Coheed56 (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous record breakers

I removed the section on "miscellaneous record breakers" as it will necessarily be incomplete: if it weren't, we'd be duplicating the book. So how to select entries for it? Funny records? Important records? What's important? Many of the records will probably not be considered encyclopedic by some—for example, who grew the largest cauliflower or collected the largest number of matchbooks. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia.

In any event, I'd say that record breakers belong not in an article about the Book, but in a separate article, if anything. -- pne 14:22, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] First edition

I seem to recall reading that the first edition was originally distributed free-of-charge to pubs as a gimmick, and only printed for sale in bookshops when Guinness noticed that large numbers of publicans were looking for replacements for stolen copies. Any truth in this? Joestynes 09:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a copy of the first edition (1955)and it was suplied to my grandfathers pup, free of charge. It does have a order form for the next issue included, at a price of 5 shilings Sterling now would be 25p

[edit] Timing

So many records of guiness are based on timing? I know this might seem like a trivial question but what watch is used to time these records?

[edit] That plant

So what is "the most poisonous plant"? The Deadly nightshade is the obvious choice, but its page claims to be "one of the most toxic in the western hemisphere." Is there something worse in the eastern hemisphere? Ojw 20:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This page[3] seems to suggest Ricin. This doesn't appear to be one of the selected records taht they make public on the Guinness World Records website. -- Bovineone 18:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Easy records

I just read in a news article about the record for continuous movie watching. It is only 53 hours! If someone were ever ambitious enough to do this, they could easily do it. Croat Canuck 15:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

So what's stopping you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.207.25.194 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Screenshot of dodgy break this record

I remember seeing a screenshot of the "break this record" link on a page that was something along the lines of dedliest terror attack or something like that. Anyone know where this image can be found and if its real or not. If we can get some confirmation that it was authentic we should probablly mention it here. Plugwash 02:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe that has been confirmed to be an internet hoax, but I'm not positive.--Visual77 03:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Budapest isn't in Romania

If you check page 267 of the 2006 edition, it will say that the womens' 4 x 400m relay record was broken in Budapest, Romania. Scott Gall 12:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• You're right. I saw that error somewhere last week. Nazism isn't cool 12:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC) PS: Anyway, happy birthday Scott, before I forget.
  • I got a copy of the 2006 edition for my birthday, and it had the same error in it as well. 203.167.171.247 11:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

They've made many ridiculous assertions about computers over the years too.86.5.107.158 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different editions, grossly different styles

The article says:

The published book has gradually changed in format from a text-heavy reference book, containing many tables, particularly in the sports section, to a colorful book with many photographs highlighting a selection of entertaining records. The change has not been universally popular...

But what this fails to mention is that the hardcover edition has gone much farther down this road than the paperback. Or at least, this was true for the US editions, through the 2005 edition.

I have at hand the 2005 US paperback, from Bantam. It's a normal mass market paperback with a small page size and about 600 pages. Flipping through it, I would say that something like 1/4 of the total paper area is taken up by photos, averaging about one per page. While I think this is a greater use of photos than was the case a few years back, the rest of the book is still text (and some tables) and in pretty much the traditional format. I have not seen the 2006 edition; I don't expect it to exist yet.

The hardcover versions of recent years, on the other hand, now use oversize pages with extensive use of color, including large amounts of text on colored backgrounds -- or at least that's what I remember from looking at them in bookstores. I haven't looked at the 2006 edition, though, and indeed it's been two or three years since I looked at one of the hardcovers at all. (And I've never had the inclination to compare the textual content of one with the paperback; sometimes I wonder if the two editions even list a different set of records.)

This style variation needs to be mentioned in the article, but I don't know enough to write it. I don't know what the non-US editions are like, and I don't even have current information about the US editions. Perhaps other readers could add comments here until there is enough information (at least for the latest US and UK editions).

Also, once this difference is being mentioned, I think it should also be pointed out that although the two editions have diverged far enough that they seem to be aimed at different markets, publication of the paperback is still delayed until months after the hardcover, just as for most other books that appear both ways. Bantam published the 2005 US paperback in May 2005, so it was not available for the Christmas 2004 season as the hardcover was, and as I said, the 2006 one probably isn't out yet.

On another point, the current managing editor should be named in the article. For the 2005 US paperback, that was Claire Folkard.

66.96.28.244 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever a UK paperback edition. The UK hardback has always been coffee-table sized (at least since the 1973 edition). I think the new-style hardback is a global edition (hence doesn't include national records, which the old UK edition did for many categories). Maybe for the US paperback Bantam are just using the Guinness brand and database under license? Joestynes 10:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

After doing a little research, it appears that both the Hardcover coffee-table book and the paperback are still in production, including the 2007 edition. I looked it up at Barnes and Noble, and the paperback edition is set to release in May and has 640 pages. http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=3674836865339&isbn=055358992X I think this is worth noting in the article, as I was confused and thought the paperback 'reference' edition was no longer produced. - meateebon 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

I don't have a copy of the book, and I need a citation for the Cane Toad article. There is the following claim in the article:

""Prinsen", a specimen kept as a pet in Denmark, is listed by the Guinness Book of Records as the largest recorded specimen, which measures 37cm from snout to vent"

Could someone please look this up, and cite it in the article, or reply here with the appropriate information of the book, to cite it on the page (title, publisher, edition, pages, authors (?) & ISBN). Thanks --liquidGhoul 14:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons

The story about Guiness beer is similar to in the simpsons where it is DUFF beer. I think this needs to be noted.

I'm a bit confused about what story. This article is about the Guinness World Records which no longer has any connection to Guinness breweries or Guinness Stout. Also, a quick check on the Guinness page and the Duff page shows no obvious connection between the two either...

There's a Duff Book of Records mentioned in one of the episodes, I believe. Daibhid C (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scantily clad women

The focus on scantily-clad female celebrities has led to complaints from school librarians.

It's not particularly clear what this is referring to? Are there lots of records like largest bust size, largest number of scantily clad females in one photo, etc? Or does Guiness use scantily clad females to help er illustrate their photos of largest tumours, fastest cars and other such stuff? Nil Einne 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging in Beer Drinking Records

Guinness World Records is easily long enough to absorb the Beer Drinking Records data encyclopedically into the ethical section of the article. -- ∞Wirelain 08:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by 24.106.226.44

I reverted these because it was not stated by 24.106.226.44 which earlier version the edits reverted to, and why the editor thinks it is better. These edits deleted the addition of relevant information citing the sources of my claim that the elevation GWR give for Khardung La is wrong. Viewfinder 10:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

What is the significance and relevance of the headless chicken link? I believe it should be deleted. Petrosino

Well spotted. Viewfinder 20:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethical Concerns

This section needs an edit but I would like to seek agreement first. It currently states in the article that GWR does not track eating and drinking records yet if you follow this link http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=56408 you will clearly see that even as recently as 2004 there are new records being set and also this link shows a press release concerning a mass toast as recently as May 30 2006 being acknowledged. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-20-2006/0004383563&EDATE Can we have clarity on this? KsprayDad 03:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've followed the link you supplied. Apparently this is an "interest" article on the website. The beer drinking feat noted to have occurred in 2001 did not make it's way into the guinness book in that year or subsequently. If you have a recent copy, you will note that there is no section listing eating and drinking records. Apparent Logic 13:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "Likewise, records related to dangerous stunts are often not published, for example those closely related to freediving," because in my 2005 and 2006 editions it has a whole page devoted to Free Diving and goes into great dept about the records.Thelegendofvix 15:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of the 2008 edition, and eating and drinking records have been reincluded into 2 pages. They have one record on the fatest drinking time for ale and beer. Would this be any bit concerning, even if they did limit the amount of liquor used? Chimichimi 00:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A guy ironing? Really?

Is that the best picture of a Guinness World record you could get? I'm sure there is a myriad of better and more representative photos of records being broken! I'm not asking for a gross-out pic or anything, but it would be nice to get at least one that doesn't doze you off! Kreachure 22:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Find it then. While we have photos of other things that have world records, like the CN Tower, the only other attempt is the drinking pic below. -- Zanimum 18:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Doctor Who vs. Stargate

Just a thought, but couldn't "continuous" be interpreted to mean "continuously broadcast on a weekly basis" as in airing repeats when no new episodes are available? And wasn't there a break in broadcast between Troughton and Pertwee in Doctor Who (circa 1970)? Anyway, can't be too certain unless we hear official word from GWR. DonQuixote 00:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, this is the correct answer according to GWR via the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2006/09/23/36558.shtml). Removing the relevant lines from the article. DonQuixote 01:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chain letters

Does Guiness have any record for the longest running chain letter? Found one such letter claiming to have begun in 1887. See the link: http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/guinness.html 59.183.177.153 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (Vader1941)

[edit] References

i rock ur world in the article itself 1 and 2 are definitely not shown, since their numbering starts with "3": how come? Extremely sexy 16:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you click on the carets after the reference numbers, the page will jump to the reference location in the text. At the time of your post the first two references were in the caption for Madonna's photo. Hoof Hearted 16:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and now still one apparently then. Extremely sexy 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Features of Guinness World Records Books

Please, merge any relevant content from Features of Guinness World Records Books per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of Guinness World Records Books. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:44Z

[edit] Rarest plant in the world?

The Guinness book 2006 claims that the mandrinette (a Hibiscus) of Mauritius is the rarest plant in the world, with 46 individual plants. But there are much rarer plants - in Australia for example, the rarest is Eucalyptus copulans (Wentworth Falls, NSW) of which there are only 1 or 2 left. Blimmin' heck, where are they getting their data from? --59.167.9.6 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia, Guinness World Records eschews original research, and therefore like Wikipedia, Guinness World Records is frequently wrong. -88.110.37.189 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The two individual Eucalyptus Capulans you mention were not discovered until after Guiness 2006 was published, before when it was assumed to be extinct. However, this statistic is pretty meaningless anyways, since it is impossible to know how many species presumed extinct actually have one or two living individuals, and it is impossible to know if the Eucalyptus Capulans actually has thousands of other undiscovered individuals.Eebster the Great (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability questions

In my opinion, this entire section is original research. The only entry in this section which has references at all is the L. Ron Hubbard one, and those references fail to mention Guinness at all. I believe that the whole section should be omitted as it is original research; it will surely act as a magnet for additional cruft and OR. Pburka 01:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

At the time when it was added, most of the Reliability Questions section was properly referenced and was not OR. But recently GWR rearranged their on-line records, killing off the appropriate links, therefore I will not contest the deletion. I cannot find the reproduction of the Khardung La falsehood in any current GWR publication, but it was definitely in the on-line version at the time that it was added to this section; the addition was therefore entirely in order. Viewfinder 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortest river?

This article mentions the Roe River in Montana as being the shortest, but the Roe River article itself mentions that the 2k7 Guinness books does not mention any river as being the shortest. The Roe River article also mentions the "D" River in Oregon, which the Oregon department of parks claims is the worlds shortest as 120 feet. Anyone actually have a copy of the book for verification?

Naznarreb 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

This section currently includes the following text: "Ashrita Furman, who once held the record for the most Guinness World Records, a category which is no longer monitored and therefore not an official Guinness World Record."

The way this statement is written it seems to imply that Furman no longer holds a large number of records, when what has changed is not his records, but the policy of Guinness towards them. In fact, he currently holds 65 Guinness World records.

In a book called Guinness World Records to the Extreme published by Scholastic in 2007, there is the following:

"If there is one person in the entire world guaranteed to have a record featured in the yearly edition from Guinness World Records, then it is Ashrita Furman. This is the man who knows how to set and break records - around the world, underwater, or atop his chin, multiple and simultaneous, in categories not even thought about before he made his attempt. He is the MOST PROLIFIC RECORD-BREAKER, with more than 100 records set or broken, and the holder of 38 current records...and he's still going strong!

"Ashrita looks like an average 50-year-old man living in Jamaica, New York. But beneath his everyday exterior beats the heart of a strong-willed, imaginative competitor who holds the MOST INDIVIDUAL RECORDS and has set a different record on every continent!"

It would be more accurate to replace the above-mentioned text with "Ashrita Furman of Queens, NY, who is recognized as the individual with the most current records although Guinness no longer counts having the most records as a Guinness record." Northstar7 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. wikipediatrix 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you mention two different current totals of records for him though: is it 38 or 65, and are you also sure about 157, plus what are your references exactly? Extremely sexy 14:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Museums section unsourced

The whole section on museums is entirely unsourced and smells strongly of original research. I'm quite new to wikipedia but IMHO it should be either sourced, removed or tagged as unsourced.Sboucher 03:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You are indeed right. Extremely sexy 13:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] web site reorganization

I not that GWR has reorganized its web site and our hundreds of links in other articles pointing to specific World Records based on a simple integer index no longer work: They all come back with 404 Not Found. See [4]--76.221.184.185 05:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Representatives from Guinness

Quite often I read statements like Guinness World Records had a representative in attendance, who confirmed the feat. Does Guinness have some staff who are on salary that travel the globe? Or is this just a notary in the area that is contracted with Guiness for a $50 fee? Some info on these "Guinness representatives" would be helpful. -Rolypolyman 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guinness does have adjudicators that will validate world record attempts. I will try to get some additional details on this. 209.17.183.209 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they have several people that travel the globe to do this. But if you want one there then you have to be willing to pay the company for the service. Of course, you can also break records without them there but it certainly makes it easier to have them judging it then rather than sending in your materials after the fact. So it costs extra but that way you can be certain that the record guidelines were followed and that the record will get accepted. (UTC)BP102

[edit] Error on the page... could someone please correct it?

At the bottom of the 4th paragraph of the "Evolution" section it still says that they're owned by "Hit Entertainment but at the bottom of the "History" section it says that HiT subsequently sold Guinness World Records in early 2008 to the Jim Pattison Group. It would probably be a good idea for someone to update this BP102 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)BP102

[edit] Drinking 10.000 ml of beer?

It is not possible for human to drink 10.000ml (10 liters) of beer or any other liquid at once. Human stomach can only expand up to 4 liters! Where did this guy put the remaining 6 liters? And also...in 0.4 sec.? More possible number would be 1.000ml (1 liter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.29.77 (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's true either. And, I don't believe anybody can drink a liter in 1 second! 76.110.82.251 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] i'm wondering

These days i and my groupmates have to do a presetation about GWR. We want to talk something about GWR more deeply not just introduce it. We want to talk about why the people want to make a record. You know, sometimes the record is very dangerous. It does no good to the people who make the record. So, I'm wondering why they want to make that record... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.62.42.144 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Pint Sized Book of Records

I think something should be added to the article about the Guinness Pint Sized Books of Records. These were pamphlets that were given away by pubs to Guinness drinkers in the 1980s as a promotion. If anyone knows, or can find out, when exactly this happened and how many pamphlets there were (I think there were two series, each with various pamphlets detailing records on different subjects) could they add it? Daibhid C (talk)