Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leap year problem

I know that no one on this list died on their birthday, but suppose there is one on this list who died on their birthday (115 years) and someone whose current age is 114 years, 365 days (with one of these days being a February 29.) How would their age difference be defined?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There are actually a couple of flaws. Guinness uses (so the GRG) uses x years x days. Like the GRG list has 3 people that are 114 years 183 days. Obviously, GRG puts those 3 in a tie. But that could demonstrably be false. Obviously, the most correct method is by age in days to not have disputes between disparity. But who cares to know that Jeanne Calment was 44,724 days old? So there are problems with multiply by 365.25 to take into consideration the leap days. Obviously, the problem is in saying someone is x years old. People who celebrate their 18th birthday in different days of different years obviously are not always going to be the same age in days (due to that February 29 that pops in every 4 years). I suppose if consensus says that the negligible difference is a problem, we can do something about it. Neal (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC).
The automatic program of Wikipedia in fact will show the age as x years and 365 days. The next example on this page will be Arbella Ewing. Check out the entry on 12 March. It will say 113 years and 365 days. The fault in the calculator is that it will calculate the years from 1894 to 2007 (113 years) and then the number of days from 13 March 2007 to 12 March 2008, which will include 29 February 2008. I agree with Neal's comment that this is a negligible problem amounting to one day's difference in about 40,000 days lived. His comment about the three people listed as 114 years 183 days is a good example. They actually lived a different length. In a previous discussion I suggested footnoting the difference. I will, I just did not get around to it. We do not make an actual change, as we use the source - any change by us would be original research.
Lydie Vellard lived 41610 + 28 leap days + 183 = 41821 days
Wilhelmina Kott lived 41610 + 27 leap days + 183 = 41820 days
Adelina Domingues live 41610 + 28 leap days + 183 = 41821 days
For those interested this was discussed at length in archive 3.Alan Davidson (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Anomalies 100 Verified List

In referrence to the above. It was discussed, but probably not enough. Another inconsistancy is entry #32 for Carrie Lazenby and Ura Koyama. They are both listed as having lived 114 years and 218 days. The fact is that although in this case they both lived 28 leap years, Carrie Lazenby lived 41,855 days and Ura Koyama lived 41,856 days. The reason in this case is that it took Lazenby 27 leap years to reach her 114th birthday and then she lived an additional 218 days(which included the 28th leap year day). Whereas it took Koyama 28 leap years to reach her 114th birthday then she lived an additional 218 days. Are we going to put a footnote for this case as well? And any others there might be? TFBCT1 (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Responses are welcomed. TFBCT1 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There are more, which I mentioned earlier in the archives. I agree, the anomolies should be noted. Alan Davidson (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Here are a list of all of the anomalies for the 100 oldest verified list: (Not including those who are living if applicable.)

Entry #32: Carrie Lazenby, Ura Koyama; listed as 114 years, 218 days

Lazenby = 28 Leap years, but last Leap year ocurring in her final 218 days, Lifespan 41,855 days
Koyama = 28 Leap years, Lifespan 41,856 days

Entry #39: Lydie Vellard, Wilhelmina Kott, Adelina Domingues; listed as 114 years, 183 days

Vellard = 28 Leap years, Lifespan 41,821 days
Kott = 27 Leap years, Lifespan 41,820 days
Domingues = 28 Leap years, Lifespan 41,821 days
  • This case has already been footnoted.

Entry #43: Martha Graham, Charlotte Benkner, Camille Loiseau; listed as 114 years, 180 days

Graham = 27 Leap years, Lifespan 41,817 days
Benkner = 28 Leap Years, but last Leap year occurring in her final 180 days, Lifespan 41,817 days
Loiseau = 28 Leap years, Lifespan 41,818 days

Entry #52: Bettie Chatmon; listed as 114 years, 108 days
Entry #53: Odie Matthews; listed as 114 years, 107 days

Chatmon = 27 Leap years, Lifespan 41,745 days
Matthews = 28 Leap years, Lifespan 41,745 days
  • Both women had the exact same Lifespan.

Entry #55: Florence Knapp, Elena Slough; listed as 114 years, 93 days
Entry #57: Lucy Jane Askew, Mary Anna Boone, listed as 114 years, 92 days

Knapp = 27 Leap years, Lifespan 41,730 days
Slough = 27 Leap years, Lifespan 41,730 days
Askew = 28 Leap years, Lifespan 41,730 days
Boone = 28 Leap years, Lifespan 41,730 days
  • All (4) women had the exact same Lifespan, yet two have a higher place on the table.

Entry #80: Fannie Thomas, Mitsu Fujisawa; listed as 113 years, 283 days

Thomas = 28 Leap years, Lifespan 41,556
Fujisawa = 27 Leap years, Lifespan 41,555 days

Entry #98 Nelle Hunt, Helen Setter; listed as 113 years, 195 days

Hunt = 28 Leap years, Lifespan 41,468 days
Setter = 27 Leap years, Lifespan 41,467 days

One final note. I just wanted to make it clear that this is in no way associated with any original research. The only thing involved was a calendar and the ability to count. And at least now it's somewhere on record if it's going to be used. TFBCT1 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to any of these changes. However, you can't use the c. 180 days for Martha Graham. The table calculated her age as born in "December 1844" rather than "December 27, 1844." The GRG tables go down to 110 (some thousand entries), so inconsistencies are actually much more than on this table. Partly has to do with the fact that these tables were done on MicroSoft Excel and the foruma that were used in calculating the age. You're welcome to change them. Neal (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC).
Well, Graham I guess is uncertain, but Loiseau's Lifespan is greater than Benkner. I also took a look at all entries that are listed with a one day difference, excluding those who are still living. There is only one additional anamoly:


I'm not sure what you meant by 'you are welcome to make these changes.' Should all the anamolies be footnoted as the current one listed? Or actually change the positions and places of the people on the table? In either case, I will not be making the changes. Unfortunately, my experience with major edits has been reversal citing some interpretation of Wikpedia policy, usually by the same User, followed by an unflattering email. And that's a waste of my time and the information gets lost. This way, the information, which I feel is important, will be archived if somebody wants to make use of it in the future. TFBCT1 (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Only if the consensus wants it. However, I do appreciate you pointing out all the inconsistencies - that itself can be reserved for future reference in case we decide we want to differentiate. Neal (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC).
If you look through the history of the site you will see that I made most of these changes. They were changed back on the basis of Original Research; that is we use sources and do not make changes, except on the basis or other reliable sources. I also argued without success that it is not original research, that it is just reading a calendar. But I would like to see a more accurate table. Indeed the same goes with respect to the Gregorian Calendar problem. There I also made changes and again it was undone. I then placed in footnotes which expalined the problem - and even that was changed to the footnotes you can see now ... which are so cryptic as to mean nothing to most people. In the end I thought one day's difference is really quite insignificant. But, please try. I support it. I would not agree with a seperate column of days though. Alan Davidson (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't read that debate, but couldn't you use that if we used days instead of x years x days? And so when we say Jeanne Calment is 44,724 days old, we can accurately rank them. Or would it be original research to know which number is bigger than the other? Neal (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC).
I already have this list if its ever going to be used in addition. TFBCT1 (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
As long as we have a date of birth and a date of death, it seems the only controversy could possibly be whether to count the days on which they were born and on which they died. As long as we're fine with that, I can't see how there could be anything "original" about calculating someone's age in days from their dates of birth and death. Requiring that we base it on years requires the errors mentioned above: we definitely need to base it on days. It's not as useful to display it in days only, but that should be our basis. Let's display it as years, list the days, and in cases where someone seems to have lived a day longer (see above), simply give a footnote. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I made such changes about 1st December 2007. Canadian Paul removed them. Have a look at the discussion at the time. I would be most happy if you put my entries back, and the others identified. Alan Davidson (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I posted the above list to show that there are a number of errors in the list, even if only by one day or so. In a field where a person's lifespan is paramount, to have a 10% error ratio doesn't seem right. I understand that the table would be less meaningful if listed in days only, but at least footnotes should be added to acknowledge the discrepancies. TFBCT1 (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That's what I did last December, and my view is that you should proceed. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note to acknowledge that I did put footnotes in for all the above cases a day or so ago. TFBCT1 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ordering the people

As this article is supposed to order people from oldest to youngest, I feel that they should be ordered by the days that they have lived, not the years and days. We have some people who have lived for eg. 41876 days ranked equal to someone who has lived 41875 days (because the first has lived through one more leap year). Clearly, the first person lived longer, and was ever so slightly older, and this should be represented in the table. Ranking by years and days lived causes these inaccuracies, and I think this should be fixed by ordering by the number of days lived from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.221.46 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

I don't visit this page much, but I happened upon it today ... due to Arbella Ewing's death. I have two suggestions / questions. So, take this from someone who has viewed your info with fresh eyes.

  • 1. Why don't you allow the few living people to stand out more? At present, the bold and such is rather ineffective. Why not something like a colored background for the "column cells" in that individual person's "row"? It would be beneficial to allow the very few (5 out of 100) to stand out more readily when glancing at a rather long list of 100 names. Perhaps the rows for the five living people could have a colored background shading similar to that pink/red color currently in the header row (Rank, Name, Age, Country, Race, etc.)? The actual color is irrelevant ... but having a background color would be helpful.
  • 2. I was reading the above posts about discrepancies in leap years / leap days / ages, etc ... and the accompanying inconsistencies and anomolies that result. Why don't you have a column for "Number of Days Lived" --- and use that as the sorting column --- and then have a separate column for "Age Expressed in Years / Days" ...? I agree that Jeanne Calment's age expressed as 44,724 days is essentially meaningless to everyone ... and that needs to be translated into "YYY years and DDD days old" so that we can understand / comprehend the age in context. But, what harm is adding the "Total Number of Days Lived" column ... since that would be the accurate and valid and factual sorting and ranking mechanism anyway, regardless of leap years or non leap years ...? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC))
I agree on both counts, for what it's worth, if someone is willing to put the effort in. The former shouldn't be too difficult, it's the latter that's tough. And while you're at it, you can remove the race column, since I believe that we've established a clear consensus that it doesn't belong here. Cheers, CP 15:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the latter is not tough at all, either. I would (and probably will) do all this myself. Not being familiar with the history of this page / article, I was not sure if there was some specific reason that these things were not incorporated as of yet. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC))
I have no problems with you going for it then! Earlier I didn't want people guessing whether or not the 11X years, XXX days things included leap years or not, because I felt that it was original research. But the number of days that someone has lived is the number of days that they have lived - people can make their own comparisons and come to their own conclusions when they see the former format side by side with the later. As long as the former matches the source data, I'm all okay with it. Cheers, CP 05:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and added a column for "Days Lived." I believe it is helpful information, and does not detract in any way. TFBCT1 (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice. I have two comments though. 1) If we're going to highlight the living people, can we make it a more obvious colour? Quickly skimming the list, the highlighted ones sort of blend in for me. 2) Can we insert a comma after the thousands digit (ie. 44,XXX)? I think that would improve the readability of the numbers. Cheers, CP 01:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I changed the colors to a green shade, representing the fertile lives of these 100 people. I originally kept the shading the same as the default header, just so that the chart would not appear gawdy with several loud colors being mixed together. Hopefully, this green works fine and is more obvious so that the four living people stand out more readily. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
2)Done. Consensur for this is now 2. However, this living people won't have commas in it. I made the tedious edit not to declare winning consensus but all it takes is to revert/re-revert once a larger consensus has been established. Anyone is free to revert to my edit in time being that the living people don't commas for the age-calculating forumala. But until we find 1, you can just revert to my edit. Neal (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC).
Under "Age in Days" ... I added the commas to the four living names, as well, for consistency with the 96 deceased names ... and for ease of reading the chart. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

The list looks quite nice now, I like the choice of colours. I think that this is the best of the "longevity" lists, arguably moreso than even the Surviving Veterans of WWI one. With a little clean up, I wonder if we could get this list featured as well... I'll have to think about it. Cheers, CP 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm not sure that it would pass criteria 1(e) (stability). Also, as I think we discussed a long time ago, we'd need to source and explain the question marks that some people have. A little work needs to be done on the explanatory stuff as well. Cheers, CP 21:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that this might be useful in explaining the question marks but, now that I think about it, where's the "overall" reference for this table? We shouldn't have to reference individual entries if there's one general reference that this table reflects — we just have to reference the deviations from the table (ie. the newer people who haven't been updated on the "all-time" list and those that are still alive). Cheers, CP 21:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Race column

Similar discussions:

I've removed it. Alan, Neal, I know you don't support this, but consensus was clearly in favour of this move. Feel free to continue trying to sway consensus, but please don't re-insert the column unless there's a consensus to do so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It is much appreciated. Cheers, CP 05:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My view remains that this is a blatantly racist action. You should try to improve it - not hide it. Alan Davidson (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how saying that race is subjective and therefore isn't important or meaningful enough to include on a page about the oldest people is racist. People are going to come to this page to see who the 100 oldest people of all time are, not what subjective societal categorization they fall into. Cheers, CP 15:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I am coming in late to the debate here. But, what exactly is the issue? What is the harm in indicating race? I would like to see how many of the 100 were broken down by race ... just as much as I would like to see a breakdown by gender or by country, etc. What is the harm in providing race? I am not sure what is the position on that side of the argument? Please let me know. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC))
If you scroll up, you can see the debate in its entirety, but the consensus is essentially that race is essentially a subjective, meaningless construct applied to people by societies with little, if any, basis in reality. Wikipedia is not a statistics bureau, it is about verifiable information. Cheers, CP 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see the "huge" debate above and I will read that when I have time. I wanted a thumb-nail sketch of the pro / con arguments. So, the original sources who tabulate this info (GRC, etc.) do not indicate race, then? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC))
Remember now, Canadian Paul (and SarcasticIdealist), I argued in WP:ANI that NPOV states it is against the removal of "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." SarcasticIdealist pointed out that race is not a view, therefore, there is nothing wrong with removing it. So he should be right, that race is by science, biology, genetics. If you're going to argue, Canadian Paul, that race is not by genetics, but subjectivity, and applied to people by societies, with no basis in reality, then uh oh, you will have to argue that it is still not a view (of society), otherwise that would violate NPOV. Neal (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Alan Davidson, what's your definition of racist? Neal (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC).

Well the reason I don't want to summarize it is that I don't want the debate to start all over again and be circular - but if I understand correctly, the GRG DOES indicate race, and the pro argument is that we are somehow "censoring" or "hiding" this "potentially useful" information. My rebuttal to that is that since we have to link to a source, we can't really censor or hide anything, since an interested individual can always check the source material. Wikipedia is about verifiability and race is just not verifiable because it is based on a set of subjective societal criteria. Note that the intro to Martin Luther King, Jr. doesn't list him as an "African-American civil rights leader". He is not inherently "African American", but the society to which he is a part of declares him so by their criteria - therefore it is not a contradiction to discuss him in terms of being an African American or being part of an African American movement. We can define people by sex or by country of birth because there are global standards for these things and they have a reasonable factual basis (obviously both can be ambiguous in certain situations, but only in the cases where they clearly fall outside of "normal" standards). But how is the GRG (or their source used to decide what "race" is) qualified to define race on a global scale? It's not, no one is. Sex and country of birth are verifiable, race is not. Therefore, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Next up, response to Neal. Cheers, CP 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Neal, read the page on Race (classification of human beings) and note in the intro how many people contend that race is a social construct. Now, if this were a page on solely American supercentenarians, you may have a point, because we'd might have to discuss the fact that people have a view that race is important in American society. But this is an article on global longevity and we don't need to include everyone's subjective view on it. Should we go to Muslim or Islam and add a section on how many people in the United States think that they're all violent terrorists. "Such and such on such an American talk show has put forth the theory that Islam is a violent religion inclined to terrorism" with dozens of sources from likeminded individuals? No because, in the context of Islam as a whole, what some Americans think about the religion is irrelevant. This is contrary to the case of Islamism, where criticism of it as a political ideology is relevant given the sphere that it participates in. Race is completely irrelevant here and I really feel like a lot of Wikipedia's policies are being unduly perverted to justify people's obsession with race as a classification. It's relevant in individual societies, but meaningless in a global context, such as with this article. Cheers, CP 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, before the counterargument is unveiled, consider this my final comment on the matter. The consensus has been clear and the decision made. You may continue to discuss of course, but I've already been too much a party to rehashing out the entire discussion again. Cheers, CP 16:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Basically, the way I understand your argument, you're saying race is a social construct, and not an objective fact. So then, it would be a view, which would violate NPOV, so it shouldn't be removed. But of course, I think race is scientific, and therefore, not a view, and therefore, does not violate NPOV, and therefore, it is okay to remove the race column by consensus. Especially since Chinese people don't give birth to Black people unless through interracial breeding of course. I wouldn't consider your Muslim example a good 1 since I personally feel it is a mental/psychological thing why some Muslims are extremist Muslims. And also people can like about being 1. As for race being irrelevant/meaningless, I don't know of or think any Wikipedia policy touches on information that is considered irrelevant/meaningless, so I have no idea about that there. This basically goes back to consensus here. Which we know what it is. Neal (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, you have 2 choices, you could either argue race is a view, or it isn't (genetic). If race is a view, it would violate NPOV, and should not be removed. But I argue race is not a view, so it doesn't violate NPOV, so there is nothing wrong (or no policy for) with removing it. As for race not being a view, imo, comes consensus. You don't have to give a reason for your consensus, since they all suck. I can debunk any of your reasons for your consensus. But that's not the point. You guys should accept that asking why you feel this way is a lot like asking you why your favorite color is your favorite color - it just is. I bet none of you can control what your favorite color is. For example, you guys are better off voting race should be removed, and not supply a reason for it. If you supply a reason for it, I could debunk that reasoning (but that still won't change your view). All it matters to me is what consensus says - because I believe removing race does not violate NPOV. Neal (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't comment again, but I wanted to point out two things: a) Chinese is a nationality, black is "race", and b) My favourite colour is orange and it is my favourite color, I believe, because the colour orange was associated with a lot of positive experiences in my childhood. By the way, is it difficult being so superior to us all that you can debunk any of our reasons for consensus without even hearing them? Cheers, CP 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, I believed that ethnicity is a component of race, so I use them interchangeably in terms of biology. I could have used Asian instead of Chinese. I don't know whether you would agree with me if I argued that your favorite color would still have been orange even if you didn't have those childhood experiences. -- . I was talking in regards to already seeing your (Bduke, SarcasticIdealist, etc.) examples, and replying to them. Neal (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
So, let us vote then, people. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Bart darling, we already did. Scroll to the top of the page. Neal (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
But you did not. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I too want to thank Sarcasticidealist for closing this discussion by carrying out the edit. I have now also removed the column on race in List of oldest people by year of birth. Let me try to put this into some kind of perspective. The template at the bottom of the page gives 11 links to articles that actually have lists of old people. These are:

After removing race from 2 of them, race is left in only 2, the two about US States. Thus 7 of these articles did not mention race. Whether race is removed from the two US State lists is, in my opinion, a matter for others, particularly editors based in the US. I am neutral there, because in the course of this long debate I have come to see that the greatest argument for removing it is that a list has to contain only one interpretation of the meaning of race and thus gives undue weight to that one POV. The column we have deleted gave the US interpretation as do the race columns in the US lists, so this argument does not apply there. I suggest that people take a look at the discussion on Talk:Race and intelligence, where they are discussing the difficulties of defining race and intelligence. One editor at Talk:Race and intelligence#Race suggested that 'Race is the word that English speaking people use to describe the categories "white", "black", "Asian" and so on'. This of course is exactly what we had here. Further down another editor refutes this and shows convincingly that these terms are used in different ways by different groups of English speaking people. It is put much better than I have tried to do above. Finally if people want to address the question whether longevity is related to race, the place to do it is an article such as Longevity myths, where the data in sources such as GRG and other US and non-US sources can be discussed in relation to various interpretations of race and thus do it in a proper NPOV way. This of course would also include the argument that race is meaningless so the connection of race and longevity is meaningless, as one of several POVs. --Bduke (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bduke wrote: Finally if people want to address the question whether longevity is related to race, the place to do it is an article such as

The answer is no, there is no correlation between race and longevity. Neal (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC).
It has been argued that this conclusion comes from looking at the tables. I am saying that if you want to argue that, then the place to do so is in a proper article where all sides of the argument can be mentioned, if sourced. The list is not the place for it. Whether your answer is correct is a matter for debate but this is not the place for it. --Bduke (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Then no where is there a place for it. Any Wikipedia article that mentions a table with age and race... Well, I didn't see a discussion/argument in the logevity myths talk, but if there is 1, you can sure let me know of it. I argue that there is no correlation between age and race not because there is evidence supporting that, but there is lack of evidence supporting there is a correlation. And I would certainly be able to support that view and point out why. Neal (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC).
Oh, you meant discussed in an article, not an article's talk page. I don't think we'll be able to provide any citations or references. So it's probably not even worth mentioning in an article itself. Neal (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC).
Neal, that is fine. I only mentioned this, because the question of a correlation (or not) has been mentioned several times as a justification for having the column on race. If this can not be supported by sources, then that justification is empty. If it can be justified by sources, then an article is the place for it, not the list. That is all I was trying to say. --Bduke (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people/Archive_8&oldid=854606919"