Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 4

Name change

I have renamed this article to more accurately reflect its contents. First of all, it will provide solid reasoning against the addition of unverified cases. Secondly, because some cases have not/cannot be proven, a list proclaiming to be the "oldest people" is almost certainly inaccurate. Just because many claims have been false or could not be proven does not mean that they weren't true, just unverifiable. This name change avoids that quagmire. For example, Hryhoriy Nestor may indeed have been 116, but it cannot be proven. Omitting from the "list of the oldest people" implies that his case is false and places an unverifiable judgment on it. Omitting him from "list of the oldest verified people" merely says that his claim was not verified, which is true. It also allows people to have understandable reservations about the list. This list does not proclaim to objectively document the 100 oldest people who have ever lived. It proclaims to document the 100 oldest people who have ever lived, subject to a subjective (if reasonable) burden of proof. Is it technically possible that Moloko Temo is 130+ years old? Yes. Is it likely? No. Is it verifiable? Not in the least. I suspect that if some divine hand descended and provided us with a list of the 100 oldest people of all time, and it was guaranteed to be 100% accurate, it would look very different from this list. Cheers, CP 18:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Good move – the new name is much better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well fundamental I would agree with this new naming, however since I consider the entire list inherently flawed, it sort of only makes it worse. In my view there is no room for ? marks people in a verified list. It is two fully colliding concepts that cannot exist in the same list.Twthmoses (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In theory, a case could be "validated" by one body and rejected by another, thus it is possible that validation and question marks could co-exist. Having said that, perhaps this can be a compromise on the issue: If there is a counter-claim published in a reliable source, then we footnote the case with an explanation. If not, then there should be no problem with remove the question mark due to Wikipedia's original research "clause." How does that sound? Cheers, CP 03:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You "consider this list inherently flawed." Before we go on, perhaps you could continue to explain yourself. As per the disputed cases, I would agree with Canadian Paul about the footnotes. However, here's something to take into consideration: the Carrie C. White case. According to Robert Young, the Carrie C. White case would not pass by today's standards. The standards were different back in 1988. So the debate is whether the people in the list should be dealt with according to today's standards, or to the standards at the time of their death. I would vote for today's standards. And if so, the Carrie C. White case would have to be removed. As per the footnote idea, Canadian Paul, we could decide on not listing the entries, and have footnotes that they might be true, or, or, list the entries, and footnote they might not be true. Any suggestions? Neal (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC).

People seeing the question marks next to entries 2, 9 and 10 must wonder what that means. Presumably they deduce that there is enough proof for listing, but not conclusive proof for 100% certainty. I would prefer these people remain listed, but that we explain by footnotes the concerns. This should not be original research - but should reflect our sources. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Neal first: Until Robert Young publishes something in a reliable source, I couldn't care less what he has to say on this issue. If he gets something published in a scientific journal about how the Carrie C. White case would not pass by today's standards, then we can footnote it and cite it with the article. Hell, even if he had a quote in a news article that said "so and so is officially the 10th oldest, but modern research has indicated that she may be the ninth since Carrie C. White's case would no longer pass the verification process" we could footnote it. Until then, right or wrong, it's original research and all we are permitted to do is reproduce what has already been published. If there was sloppy science done along the way, then it is beyond Wikipedia's job to be the sole corrector. Removing the entries would place our subjective opinion on their validity; I prefer Alan Davidson's suggestion: footnote the question mark in the sources. If the "?" can't be reliably sourced, then take it out. Cheers, CP 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly we are "verifying" in this list. There ought to be a clear distinction between cases which have truly been validated and are therefore "verified." The inclusion of shigechiyo Izumi, Carrie C White, Kamato Hongo, Anitica Butariu, Mathew Beard, and Martha Graham in the list without some distinction that their cases are dubious at best does not create a reportedly "verified" list. Unless you are verifying that their cause of being accurate is less likely. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that Izumi was b.1880 and died at age 105, and White b.1888 and died at age 102, and the rest are all suspect as well. TBarry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.71.166 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well hello, Atlanta! We don't know that the S. Izumi born in 1880 is a brother of the S. Izumi born in 1880. And I recall there is only 1 evidence that supports C. C. White as being born 1889. Neal (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

Anyways, I always thought we could do something like, 120 or 105. And then, users will have to click the Shigechiyo Izumi if they want to further read up on why. Footnotes is another possibility. Neal (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

Leap day revisited

In the discussion above we noted that there are several examples where the source ignores the actual number of days the person has lived (using only years and days). I previously changed the table to make it accurate. But, it was suggested that this was original research - and that the article should only reflect sources (right or wrong). I agree. But is there any objection to inserting a footnote noting the discrepancy for our readers - a matter which can be verified by looking at a calendar. I would like a chance for comments before inserting such a footnote. I appreciate that it is a relative minor matter as it can only be a discrepancy of up to one day.Alan Davidson (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all: so be my guest. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I thought we already agreed that it was a good idea? Or was that something else? Anyhow, yes, it should be fine, though I'll have a look over once it's in there. Cheers, CP 18:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly we are "verifying" in this list. There ought to be a clear distinction between cases which have truly been validated and are therefore "verified." The inclusion of shigechiyo Izumi, Carrie C White, Kamato Hongo, Anitica Butariu, Mathew Beard, and Martha Graham in the list without some distinction that their cases are dubious at best does not create a reportedly "verified" list. Unless you are verifying that their cause of being accurate is less likely. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that Izumi was b.1880 and died at age 105, and White b.1888 and died at age 102, and the rest are all suspect as well. TBarry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.71.166 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is "evidence" that the claimed birthdates are incorrect then the relevant links should be noted in their respective biographies. Until such time as an appropriate reference is made then even alleging a dispute should probably not be made in the list(s).DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Revertion

The revertion of my changes has brought back unverified assumpions based solely on personal speculations of the writers of the article: this is contrary to the agreements reached on this discussion page.
I would be glad to know the reasons for:
1) the removal of the caveat that the list is based on years, and that a list based on days could produce a different ordering;
2) the supposition that the dates posted are anything but Gregorian Calendar dates;
3) the totally and completely gratuitous assumption of why whatsoever the life of that Japanese guy could be 12 years shorter than what listed.
My changes addressed all the problems that has arisen in this discussion page: why on Earth it has been canceled? Gbnogkfs 2 January 2008, 17:08 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I quite liked your version and it was perfectly compliant with Wikipedia's policies and the consensus reached here, so I've restored it (with a copyedit). Cheers, CP 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I preferred the original version (but then I put it in). But, my reason is that it contained more information with a meaningful explanation. The current version is cryptic. It does not explain the effect of the actual difference. I would like a comment as to why a cryptic note (meaningless to most) is an improvement. To answer the three questions (1) The list is meant to be a list of the oldest people in order; the actual time lived is inaccurate where we assume the years are all equal. A note informs readers of this. (2) The source does not state whether the date was adjusted for the Gregorian calendar. So we leave the table as is, and put in a note inform readers of the possibility (indeed historical dates before the Gregorian calendar have not been changed). I am unsure why anyone would do that. (3) If you mean he is 12 years younger for some other reason - that does not impact the Gregorian calendar issue.Alan Davidson (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) A note informs reader of this in MY version of the page, not before

(2) The previous note actively suggests that an error is likely to have been made: this statement must be sourced

(3) Yet it is totally unclear why the note said he should be 12 days younger.

Gbnogkfs 3 January 2008, 19:00 (UTC)

I am sorry I missed this entire discussion. I am contrary to the current revision and prefer Alan's because it was more informative, especially as to the impact for placement of Emiliano Mercado del Toro and Bettie Wilson on the table. And it does imply error and so be it. The probability on the side of this one is on error. To simplify- the table is most likely wrong. TBarry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.71.166 (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What's "most likely" is irrelevant unless it can be sourced. Alan Davidson's is better for an academic work, Gbnogkfs' is better for Wikipedia, as it is more compliant with the policies. Cheers, CP 23:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the sentence added by CP before the table explains the position well for those who wish to take it further - and it promotes the issues from a note to the body of the work. Well done. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Race III

The column on race should be deleted for two reasons. Firstly, race is not a defining characteristic. Second, and more importantly for us, it is not verified and in fact is essentially unverifiable. It seems that the race is just guessed from the country of the person and their name. Let us leave that guesswork to the readers. --Bduke (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There IS SO an accepted classification of races! I think the section should stay! 138.217.145.45 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Accepted by who? And which classification??? Try reading the wiki page on Race.DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That article is indeed helpful. To those who want to retain this column on race, could you address the point about whether the entries are verified and whether they can even be verified. --Bduke (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Information regarding race should stay. My understanding is that it is verified from the source. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it verified? Take Edna Parker, the current oldest. She looks white, but does the article verify it? I do not think so. Anyway what is meant by saying someone belongs to the white race? It really is meaningless. The list would be better without it. --Bduke (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be better without it, if not including it is a benefit. Neal (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

You can't always tell a person's race just by their country. 138.217.145.45 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So how do you tell? I would say that "You can't always tell a person's race. (period) (full stop)". That is why it should not be here. --Bduke (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am oversimplifying it, but we accept all the other information from the sources. If unknown from a particular source we should not guess. But as an encyclopedia we take the information from the source - we do not change it (unless another more reliable source gives us cause). If you want to attack this, perhaps you should visit the sources - such as GRG. Alan Davidson (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What is GRG? Now tell me exactly where the sources say that Edna Parker is of the white race? --Bduke (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And when the GRG does not know the race of the individual, they use the question marks. We can do the same here. Neal (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

What is GRG? What do the initials stand for? Anyway, are you not assuming that everybody has a race? That is a POV. I dispute it. OK, that is a different POV. Since it adds nothing, the NPOV way is to remove it. Reading Race (classification of human beings) makes it quite clear that the concept of race is far too controversial to be used in the simple minded way it is on this article. I also note that race is not used in the lists: Oldest people, List of centenarians, List of living supercentenarians, National longevity recordholders, Living national longevity recordholders and Longevity claims. It is only used in this list and List of oldest people by year of birth, U.S. state longevity recordholders and List of oldest living people by U.S. state (I put the last two down to the US obsession with race like the English are obsessed with class, obsessions which are not generally shared by the rest of the world and are of course POVs). What does race add to any of these lists? One could argue that only name, date of birth and date of death (or fact that still living) is needed. Even sex is not really needed as it is well know that women generally live longer than men. We do not need country either in most cases. However sex and country are firmly verifiable and easily verified. That is not true of race. Race should be removed from this list. Is anyone going to give a good reason for its retention or shall I just go ahead and remove the column? --Bduke (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

GRG stands for Gerontology Research Group. You should look at the site at www.grg.org. Hyano czespony (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It is clear where the information for this article came from. However, I do not see where they justify listing race, although I could have missed it. That site has a different purpose from Wikipedia. We have to fit our guidelines. Just because the GRC lists race does not mean it has to be listed on this WP article. It has to be justified on WP terms, and I do not think it has been so for. --Bduke (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want you to know that there were two previous requests to remove that column, and they were both declined. Hyano czespony (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have found them at Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 1#Race and Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 2#Race. I'll look at them in detail, but at a quick look I do not see a consensus to keep the race column. I see the questioners giving up and the status quo continuing. --Bduke (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the GRG sources come from Guinness. So I think a better question is, how does Guinness know the race of the individual? In many cases Guinness made real-life visits. A lot of the GRG supercentenarians have correspondents that meet the people in real life. I personally don't think race is the hard issue, but ethnicity. Anyways, there aren't many choices in the column of race. What else is there besides White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic? I note we have very few cases of Native American, such as in the single-digit. So it's not really hard to distinguish. I think race is good demographic information. Neal (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

I must agree with Neal. It is good demographic information. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved in this debate, but I guess it comes with the territory. My question is whether or not all of these races can be cited and verified. If they can't, (and I suspect that I can't, given all the difficulties in defining one's "race"; after all, even with nationality, we use place of current residence to determine the "flag" in the appropriate column), then the debate is moot because one of Wikipedia's key policies is that uncited/unverifiable material, especially when contentious (and in this case, I can see arguments being made that it is, if they haven't been already) may be removed at any time. Cheers, CP 04:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I agree, but this causes me to repeat my comment above, but in this form. We are taking the facts from the source. To alter it would be in breach of policy. But we accept other information from the same source. I am sure some dates are incorrect, but we cite the source not our views. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding sources from Guinness - A lot of the claims for notability are by assertion that it is further down the chain of articles or links, as this one is. I do not have immediate access to the Guinness Book of Records, but on their web site I found "Oldest Married Couple - Aggregate Age". There was not a glimmer of mention to their race. So, I'm calling you on this one. Give a specific example of how one person on the list has their race verified from their entry in the Guinness Book of Records, and give the actual words from their that verifies the race of the person concerned. As CP says, race is contentious. If are going to use it, then you have to get it right. To Alan Davidson, I agree about sources, but I do not see sources that give "race". They might say "Black American", or ethnicity or nationality or where they are born, but none of these are race. Can not anyone give a source that clearly says "Race of X is Y"? I know the GRC does this but where do they get the information from? Also Alan, I dispute that race is a fact. It is almost entirely a meaningless construct. What little meaning it has, tells us that we are all multi-racial. --Bduke (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bduke - greetings. To answer your comment "I do not see sources that give "race""; - when I last visited the GRG site (the source for much of the list) it has a column which has the race. To respond to your comment "where do they get the information from?" - well I repeat my comments above - "we accept other information from the same source"; why do we accept the ages, name, dates of birth and countries but question this? To answer "I dispute that race is a fact" - I am not unsympathetic with your viewpopint; but I do not believe we can pick and choose; information (which I referred to as facts) is listed and regarded as verified. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Than one question is whether GRG is a reliable source. GRG seems to be getting its information from other sources. I think we need to do so also. I can see that ages, names, dates etc can all be reliably obtained from other sources and someone above says Guinness is one. That indeed does look like a reliable source. That is why I have asked some pointed questions about what it says about race. Frankly I think race is such a mixed up meaningless concept that no reliable sources exist. I can not even put myself in a race category and think it means anything. The simplest thing is to not include it in this list. --Bduke (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Take it out please. Unverifiable, meaningless noise. —Moondyne 08:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Since GRG lists the race of the thousand of supercentenarians, it is not up to Wikipedia to decide whether they're right or not. Perhaps in conflicting sources, then we can regard the disparity. Anyways Bduke, a good argument on your side which I did not see you include is, what if there were conflicting races? In the United States, someone who is 3/4th Black and 1/4th White is still considered to be Black. Emma Tillman is 1/2 Black and 1/2 Native American, yet in her birthday articles/obits, they will still say she was the only Black person in her high school. U.S. candidate Obama is half-black and half-white, and by definition, that is still considered to be Black. Nevertheless, I'm not worried about the choices of White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic. If you want to replace entries not on the GRG tables, you can replace their race with a question mark I guess. Nevertheless, I still support race. It's ethnicity that can be the confusion. Neal (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

It is up to Wikipedia to decide whether race is an appropriate factor to mention in this list, whether GRG lists to or not. Am I reading this right? Are you now saying that GRG is the only source that references race and the only source we should and have to use? I have asked many times for clarification of how other sources demonstrate the race of a person and nobody has answered. If you are only relying on GRG, I have to say it is not a reliable source because its conclusions are not supported by other independent sources. You mention some good points on how the US, with its obsession with race, defines people. I think we label Obama as black because he choses to self-identify in that way. I think he is choosing his ethnicity. The idea of race is that it is an objective fact about someone and it is that that is nonsense. I suspect that lots of the sources mentioned above are reporting how the person self-identifies. That is not evidence for their race. I am very busy right now, but I will try soon to analyze the previous two discussions on this and summarize the argument against the inclusion of race. In the meantime, could people please answer my questions about other sources, particularly my question about the Guinness Book of Records. --Bduke (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bduke, I have questioned the reliability of GRG That debate took place here [[1]]. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Odder and odder. Above Neal says GRG gets its data from Guinness ("A lot of the GRG sources come from Guinness"). On that link CP says Guinness gets it data from GRG ("What is true is that Guinness uses the GRG as their source for "verified" supercentenarians and their annual top 10 lists"). Could we have a source for either of these contradictory statements? Alan, I think your questioning was spot on. --Bduke (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite by chance 20 minutes after writing the above my wife returned from town with a copy of the 2008 Guiness Book of Records. Their data on page 67 for the World's oldest living people is credited to GRP as of 3 March 2007. We are back to where GRG gets its data, particularly for race. Guinness Book of Records does not mention race. --Bduke (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bduke - may I clarify the focus of this discussion. Are you concerned about race or GRG being a verifiable source. If the former, then the answer is we use a verifiable source. If the latter then effectively the entire table must be called into question, not just race. Indeed that debate has been ongoing. We have been discussing what should and should not be in the lists. There are many entries from "lower" sources. The higher standard seems to have been using GRG. Please see the debate here Talk:List_of_living_supercentenarians#Crunch_time. By the way, I think GRG is not a verifiable source; but I have accepted that I am in the minority. Alan Davidson (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Several points:

First off, I said it's not up to Wikipedia to decide if GRG sources are right, except if there is a conflict with other sources. And yes, it is up to Wikipedia to decide if they want to include race or not.

Secondly, since Wikipedia will only list the top 100, we don't have to worry about the GRG listing the top 1,000.

Thirdly, with the U.S. cases, GRG gets their sources from the U.S. census. We see this demographic information collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, Social Security Administration, etc. You can research those yourself. GRG also looks into censuses that cover United Kingdom. It seems quite politically-correct to argue that 'race' is not a 'characteristic,' just as gender is, when we see these Obama-Clinton pundit debates. So, suppose a celebrity who is half-black and half-white goes by White. And the sources will link that. It would not be up to Wikipedia to decide what the sources decide, anyways. But I agree if we want to include footnotes.

Fourthly, we can find sources at the GRG in scientific journals. The real point was supposed to be that the list was 'inclusive' and that it appears that race is not a significant factor like gender is. Now, I'm more worried about specific cases. If you have specific cases where a question mark remains, you can post a list of them in the talk, and we can work on them in the individual level.

As with the GRG and Guinness. Guinness was before GRG (1955). GRG started their tables in 1999. Guinness only tracks the oldest person in the world, with exceptions. They have been known to track oldest man/woman in world and oldest man/woman in a country like the U.S. or England. But they don't keep a top 100 list. GRG does. Guinness sources GRG for a top 10 list. GRG also accepts cases by Guinness. They work together. Neal (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

"Hispanic" is problematic enough, but "Lusitanic?" Why not identify "Slavic, "Germanic" and "Celtic" centenarians too? 72.191.189.123 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The continual re-definition of the alleged "races" only reinforces the point that the concept has no validity and should not be included in the list.DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I have been hoping to find time to analyze all the arguments that have been put forward to retain race on this and similar articles, but I have been flat out. It would need quite an effort. Nevertheless, the inclusion of race is just as unacceptable now as when I objected some weeks ago and when others objected much earlier in discussion now in the archives. It should be removed. --Bduke (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I could see a point to this if the list were entirely of United States residents, then these categories would be somewhat relevant. But on a global level, these are not internationally recognized or even commonly used categories. If nothing else, these "race" labels are U.S.-centric.72.191.189.123 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two lists that cover the USA only. There are two general lists. I agree with the above. My concern about including race refers only to the latter two lists, of which of course this list is one. Another problem is that the terms used are not inclusive, but are only ones that currently have representatives on the list. How would a traditional inhabitant of Buka, off Bougainville in Papua New Guinea, be labeled? They are much blacker skinned than any African-American or African. --Bduke (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)