Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Gregorian Calendar

This article makes mention of alternative calendars having been in use, and that these calendars affect the given age of certain individuals. Can someone explain here (on this Talk Page) the significance to me of these alternative calendars? I do not understand how they impact the ages listed and this article does not make this point clear. Here are three statements (below) from the article that refer to alternative calendars, yet they do not explain what their impact is. Thanks.

• The term year, however, may refer to different amounts of days either due to the presence or absence of a leap day within the "year" or to the conversion of dates from one calendar to another. (Question: How does conversion from one calendar to another alter the number of days within a "year" and, hence, impact the meaning of the word "year"?)

• Izumi's stated birthdate is June 29, 1865. However, Japan did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until January 1, 1873. (Question: So what? What does this mean?)

• Butariu's stated birthdate is June 17, 1882. However, Romania did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until March 1919. (Question: So what? What does this mean?)

These statements are very confusing to the reader. They all imply that the different calendars impact the individual ages, but they don't say exactly how. Nor do they say if these variations are even "accounted" for (e.g., extra days added or subracted in the conversion to remove the discrepancy of differing calendars). Can someone please clarify this for me? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

The last two should just be removed with the rest of the footnotes, now that the "age in days" column exists. Cheers, CP 01:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the footnotes are confusing. I prefer the original which was discussed and debated. The issue is that these people's birthdates did not take into account the Gregorian Calendar. I will put the original version back for clarity. To clarify further, the age in days column does not fix the issue. I would argue that the entries should be changed - but rather than be that bold, the should be the footnote pointing out the anomoly for accuracy. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The footnotes have been in place since December 2007 - after considerable discussion. The comment by Spadaro indicates that the brief footnotes did not make sense. They need to explain the position - not be deleted. Please discuss before changing the status quo. (Please note the part in brackets in the footnotes.) The age in days column does not address this problem.Alan Davidson (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you scrolled down the talk page a bit you'd see the message from Robert Young, proving exactly what I was talking about with the original research problem. If I am reverted again without discussion, I will start a RFC for the page, much like I did with Ruby Muhammad. The original research on supercentenarian pages has got to stop. Cheers, CP 01:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul - I am unsure where to start - there are so many points to make.
1. This has been in place since December 2007 when it was discussed thoroughly - and you were part of it - before changing the status quo discussion is required - you should not take unilateral action.
2. I had read what Robert Young had said - but you wrote in this section and then said look at the discussion -
3. Robert Young has been banned. Why trust his second hand comments - (which could be OR) - we should trust the site - which makes no mention of this.
4. His view on Japan is quite valid – but is addressed by the bracket part of the footnotes.
5. It is not OR – but if you thought it was – why did you wait so long.
6. This seems to be spurred on by a comment that the footnotes were unclear, not wrong.
7. I will revert tomorrow. Alan Davidson (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, even though Robert Young is actually blocked, I'm not sure your reason #3 is relevant. Robert Young is the author of the table, though (not that it matters). Neal (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

P.S., forgot to answer my question on your 'racist' definition in race column section? Neal (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

Reply:

1. The message from Robert Young was up there for a week before I removed the notes, so you had a week to argue against me. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., silent consensus is still consensus.
2. I don't even get your point with this one
3. Robert Young's message is in his capacity as site editor, not as a Wikipedia editor. My point has always been that when a source makes something unclear, we should NEVER speculate on what it leaves out. His message was an excellent example of why we shouldn't do this.
4. The bracketed part, along with the rest of it, was original research, so what it addressed is irrelevant. Wikipedia is NOT a place for speculation, scholarly or otherwise.
5. Because I wanted an amiable consensus. But when the guy who is responsible for the source takes time out to email me and says "Don't do this, you're putting subjective original research on my source," then that's something as an administrator that I have to take very seriously.
6. No, that's Martha Graham's footnote, which is going to get removed in a week too if it's not explained better and cited (even though uncited material may be removed at any time). Yours may be right for all I know, but that doesn't make it any less original research.
7. It might be for the best, since I think that an RFC for this page might do wonders, much as it did with Ruby Muhammad. If there's no formation or respect for consensus, it might be the only way.

Wikipedia's job is to report what it sees, not to think about it, find new things out about it or discover flaws or things that you think the sources might have gotten wrong. Everything on Wikipedia must be verfiable; there's no room for us to say "well maybe they forgot this" even if we acknowledge that they may not have. Cheers, CP 15:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul and Neal seem to make a point that Robert Young is the author of this. Indeed he wrote to me today about this stating in part … "I agree it's an error that should have been addressed long ago. However, we cannot be 100% certain whether these dates of birth are O.S. or N.S. (unless I actually worked on the case myself...as I mentioned the Izumi case was from 30 years ago)." Might I suggest that as the source states it cannot be 100% certain, that a footnote is warranted. Alan Davidson (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reinstated the information - the last paragraph deals with the position from the source and has been and has been in place for more than a week. Alan Davidson (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Living people

Can someone explain something for me, regarding the four living people currently on this list? Their ages are calculated day-by-day, presumably by a computer program or through the age template. How, then, is their rank adjusted daily? Does some computer program adjust the person's rank (on a daily basis), just as it does with the age? Or, does some live-person editor go in and --- when they notice that a living person's age has now surpassed someone who had previosuly ranked higher on the list --- manually adjust all the impacted rankings? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

Well gee, all I did was click on view source, and saw that the person simply typed the number. No formula used. Of course, I would argue that a foruma should be used. Neal (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC).

I am not sure if yours was a serious answer to my question or not. Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

The list is manually adjusted when people notice that someone should move up a place. Several people tend to keep an eye out. You can check this on the page history. Regards. Rrsmac (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I usually go in and take care of it. Now that I have added the "Age in days" column it might look a bit awkward in that we will be following ranking based on the age in "years, days" format. I think it was better explained with the footnotes, but now they are removed. I had considered removing them myself, but decided to keep them. I'm not sure who went and decided to remove them. Just to clarify, I am the one who added all those footnotes. I am also the one who reformatted the table, added the "Age in days" column, calculated their corresponding ages and made the adjustments. I am very happy with all of the additional improvements as well, but I was surprised to see the footnotes disappear. Eventhough there is a sentence explaining there might be a deviation, there is no direction, so it might look inaccurate and sloppy. TFBCT1 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because all of the information was already contained within the column. We have to maintain the ranking provided by the sources (hence why I reverted Spadaro's edits) or else we run the risk of violating WP:OR. We can change around that one sentence or remove it as the situation dictates. Cheers, CP 01:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I know the information is contained within the column; I added the column. I also had no question regarding ranking. Looks like a rookie error to me. My point is regarding the value of the footnotes. If someone is browsing the page, they are apt to be confused if they see what appear to be obvious descrepansies. If they are then directed to a footnote for explanation, the problem is solved. Instead we are relying on a sentence which is a little hard to digest at the top of the table. That's why I decided to leave the footnotes in. Many Thanks. TFBCT1 (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that you know, I was trying to answer your question and explain my reverting of Spadaro's edits at the same time, hence why I discussed the ranking. I agree that we definitely have to work on the prose sections of this article, including working on/expanding that sentence to explain the discrepancies better. The footnotes, however, said nothing that was not already explained by the column. So while I agree that the discrepancies might need to be better explained, I do not believe that footnotes (at least in the form that they were in) were the way to do it - they didn't do much more than the column itself and didn't really explain it as well as either of us would have liked. Cheers, CP 19:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rankings

Can someone please explain to my why listing accurate ranks is not acceptable and is allegedly a violation of OR? My initial thinking is that comparing the values of cardinal numbers (in an ordinal ranking) is not research at all, much less original research. For example, I don't believe that it is research at all (nor is it original research) to state that the number 41,821 is larger than the number 41,820. And that 41,821 days is more than (i.e., ranked higher than) 41,820 days. That would be tantamount to saying that the following statement amounts to OR: "Queen Elizabeth, who is age 80, is older than Tom Cruise, who is age 40." Does that statement constitute OR? How is that distinct from the issue at hand here? I do not believe that the Queen Elizabeth/Tom Cruise statement constitutes OR ... nor do I see that as distinct from comparing the ages on this Chart. So, I am not sure what the underlying issue here is? Please let me know. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

I agree with you: good point again. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, per users "Bart Versieck" and "Joseph A. Spadaro." Neal (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Spadaro, I suggest that you peruse the archives for a fuller discussion of this. I will, however, briefly summarize it for you. You're taking the ranking numbers from a certain source, the GRG. You cannot deviate from their ranking without it being original research - sure it may seem logical with the number of days on the side, but if we allow for unstructured deviations, we're introducing our own element of original research and potentially subjectivity. If we begin to deviate outside the structure of the original source (and, indeed, since the methods we use to include people who are still living and move them up the list are within the original methodology, this is acceptable), then we open the door for people to add their own, more harmful original research to the list, such as adding the 150 year old claimant from Timbuktu. Your analogy is faulty because you're not creating a page based on a reliable source that says that Elizabeth and Cruise are the same age. If the GRG ranks them at the same level, you have to respect the original sources; you can't just decide that they made a mistake and rank them differently. You've researched and found that some people lived through leap years and some didn't. Therefore, you wish to modify the "official" (as defined by this page) ranking and deviate from the source. This is research is original. I thought we came to a compromise with allowing a column for days lived - this allows people to make their own decisions. "Rank" is not our ranking, it's the GRG's and, unless they change it to account for your research, then "Rank" has to reflect the GRG. Maybe it's not the best policy, but OR has to be followed, whether it's on a WP:BLP or something somewhat more trivial such as this, and there's no room for WP:IAR.

And Neal, saying that you agree per Bart and Spadaro is redundant, since Bart is agreeing per Spadaro as well. So all you're saying is that you agree per Spadaro and Spadaro.Cheers, CP 19:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! It goes beyond my understanding that calculating exact age in days is not original research while sorting the table according to it is?! Koristka (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, another person blocked indefinitely, just like Robert. See the bottom of talk. Ho boy. Neal (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Ani#Help_Me explains it. Sooo weird. Neal (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Wewt, looks like he might be back after all. Someone approved of his 2nd unblock request, so he might reply back to Canadian Paul in a couple of days. Neal (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

On a personal note, I found it to be quite bold that an idea that I suggested back on March 7th(the separate column for "Age in days"), then I saw there seemed to be consensus to implement, so I made all the calculations, formatted the table and edited; appeared to be readily credited to someone else. Not that any of that matters. I was happy to do it, and it's important to me that it's done correctly. TFBCT1 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Credited to whom? You have my sympathy. Neal (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Who else was credited for it? Also, please remember that no one owns their contributions. Cheers, CP 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's my question. I have no idea. I don't think credit for the tables was given to anyone. So I don't quite understand his argument. Neal (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC).

Okay, since you didn't come up with a response (per editing another part of this talk), I guess there was no one mentioned credited for the tables, therefore, you did not have to feel a sense of someone else being lied to about getting credit for your work if no one got credit for it to begin with. Neal (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC).

Wow. My comment was taken way out of context. I didn't respond further because I was lightly referring to someone who didn't respond. I'm not sure where the lying? was inferred? I was talking about a simple matter of acknowledgment, but as someone has already pointed out there is no "credit" on Wikpedia. Enough with that. I notice this page is rated a "B-Class." I'm not too familiar with the rating system other than what I have briefly read. I was wondering what would be needed for this page to be an A-Class? TFBCT1 (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A list cannot be either "GA" or "A" class... technically it shouldn't even B class, it should be "List" class or "Featured" class, but apparently the WOP group doesn't have a list class parameter set up. In any case, to answer the spirit of your question, I think I noted someone where on this talk page some suggestions about how to get this list featured, but it will require some significant work. Cheers, CP 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. TFBCT1 (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: so I made all the calculations, formatted the table and edited; appeared to be readily credited to someone else. Not that any of that matters.

So my question, again, is, whom was the person that appeared to be credited to? Neal (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC).

Spadaro. His talk page showed that he was clearly having trouble with the calculations, so I kind of butted in and completed something he may have been working on. TFBCT1 (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well after looking through his talk, I couldn't find that to be the case, but I'll take your word for it. Neal (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC).

Explanation from Robert Young

Okay, there's obviously a lot of mutterings about the rankings and the Gregorian calender issue. Normally, I do not respond to emails from Robert Young, but I think that these two are very important and it explains exactly the point that I am trying to make about original research. As per the message, I have been given permission to reproduce the communication:

Regarding the discussion of rankings based on supercentenarians (years and days):

1. The GRG chose the year/day format, in part due to tradition. This tradition includes Guinness World Records but was actually started by T.E. Young, president of the Society of Actuaries (London) in 1899.

2. In many cases we do not know the exact day/hour someone is born. Someone may appear to be older at '41,821' days than someone who is '41,820' days. But let's suppose that person A was born at 11PM and died at 1AM, they lived 41,820 days and 2 hours, they get credit as 41,821 'days'. But the second person was born at 1 AM and died at 11PM, they get credit for 41,820 days, but they actually lived 41,820 days and 22 hours. Thus, based on the scientific concept of 'sigificant digits', we shouldn't really be over-focusing on extreme/exact amounts like this...we simply don't have enough information to conclude who is older.

3. The 'equal' rankings were also done to conform to Microsoft Excel, which uses the years/days to calculate the ages.

I'd appreciate it if you could point this out, that it is not simply a matter of the GRG not knowing math.

Sincerely, Robert Young

and...

CP,

I'm not convinced that Shigechiyo Izumi needs a 'Gregorian calendar' adjustment. Ages in Japan were recorded using their own calendar; the 'year' is based on the year of the emperor's reign. Thus, Kamato Hongo was born in the year M20 (20th year of the Meiji era) which is then transribed into the English year '1887'. Since the transcriptions would have been modern (application to Guinness in 1978 for Izumi), but the original data were recorded in a Japanese system, I don't see how the Gregorian calendar would affect this process. In any case, the research was done in 1978 (I was four years old) and I had nothing to do with it, and the data for Izumi is now 'lost.'

I hope that this clarifies the situation for everyone. Changing the ranks is original research, as the source information does not have enough information to conclude who is older. Cheers, CP 21:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw this reply a couple hours ago but now I want to point out something. I, too, got this e-mail, but not sure why I didn't post it. But I found this part interesting.

This tradition includes Guinness World Records but was actually started by T.E. Young, president of the Society of Actuaries (London) in 1899.

Wow, looks like, a great-grandfather of Robert Young. The tradition shall live on. Neal (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC).

The argument above by Robert Young seems to make sense until you consider that the "years, days" format is significantly more arbitrary and less accurate than "days lived" and the only thing pointed out was rare extremes. It still presents itself as a mathematical fas paux on the part of the GRG in my opinion. TFBCT1 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the Martha Graham note (The day count for Martha Graham is an estimate in that it has been extrapolated) doesn't really explain the circumstances, the statement needs to be cited. Explaining the question marks is one thing, but the explanation has to be verifiable and attributed to a source. Cheers, CP 16:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you TFBCT1, but I have an degree in economics, so I know what extrapolation is. Your note still tells us nothing about how and why that extrapolation occurred, therefore it is meaningless in its current state. Cheers, CP 15:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

date when new countries' citizens would qualify?

When did countries with large populations (eg China, India, Russia, Brazil) develop acceptable types of documentation? When will these countries' citizens be able to make this list? Matthias5 (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For China, seemingly 1950. My Mom whom was born in China in 1955 has a birth certificate, but my grandparents born in 1923 and 1925 don't. Probably 1950 when Mao Ze Dong came into power and started a new landmark revolution. However, I'm guessing there is a possibility of exceptions for people born before 1950 with birth certificates if they were born in a hospital (rather than in a house or farm). Although birth certificates are 1 way to get validated in the GRG, so are census records, which I think are the case for many cities and town. However, no 1 from the GRG is Chinese or lives in China so we won't have any validations soon. How my grandparents born in the 1920s got their d.o.b. on their IDs when moving to the U.S. is probably a bit of a mystery to me. Neal (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

Age

Should the determining factor be 'Age', or 'Age in Days'? It seems that it would be the latter, as a person who has the same 'Age' but had another leap day in their life would have been on this planet longer. Also, even though it has been discussed previously, does anyone know if Guinness has a policy on this? Perhaps both people with the same 'Age' and 'Age in Days' should be tied, to end the debate? Star Garnet (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer "age in days". Extremely sexy (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed this to death. If you look a few discussions up, you'll see that Guinness' policy to list by age. But don't worry, we can discuss this in the RfC that I will be opening up later today, since again WP:OR was violated by restoring the Gregorian calender speculation. I will open up the RfC to discuss both forms of original research, the Gregorian calendar and the division by age in days, later today when I am more awake and will alert all users who have been party to the discussion. Cheers, CP 15:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to assist. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why make allegations about OR and the Gregorian calendar here, when the opportunity and proper place was in the above segment on the Gregorian calendar. The concerns were addressed, and there was a wait of 8 to 9 days.Alan Davidson (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I told you after I undid the edit the last time that, if it was replaced, I would start a RfC on this page. Plainly stated. It was replaced, so that is what I am doing. I had things to do in my real life, but I would have started a RfC on Day 1 if I had the time. Cheers, CP 22:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)