Talk:List of living supercentenarians
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| List | This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on August 10, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] German Cases
Two cases are missing in the unverified section section:
-Frieda Borchert, born 05.01.1897 http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/9525
-Lina von Veh, born 23.02.1898 http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/9985
--Statistician (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- As discussed above, they need to have reliable sources reporting them, and WOP is not one. Cheers, CP 06:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- This has been discussed to death. Please do not re-add them unless you have a reliable source covering their death - and seeing as how Robert Young's group was removed en masse from Wikipedia as spam, it does not count. Cheers, CP 17:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
First it's isn't Robert Young's group - we are hundreds on the list. And what ist for you a reliable source? I phoned with the doughter of Lina von Veh last week and she's still alive but we have problems to get all documents because she was born in St. Petersburg and was expelt after the Oktober Revolution...
Frieda Borchert was confirm alive as of 5.1.2008 via phone by an other german researcher.
--Statistician (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- It IS Robert Young's group because he has complete control over a) What material gets posted on his site and b) Who is allowed to access it. Secondly, all material on Wikipedia must be verified and no one can verify original research. How the heck do I know whether or a German researcher called all of these people? How can anyone confirm that? Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth; it would fall apart if we just started taking every (or any) user at their word. So if von Veh's documents were lost or destroyed, I'm sorry for her, but she doesn't belong here if not so much as a news report on her can be provided to place her in the "unverified" column. Cheers, CP 18:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That's so weird about wikipedia. False articels in the internet are prove enough, but only printed articels and a group about validating aren't...
Btw.: The grg-page with the reseacher Robert Young ist a resource for you, but not the mailingliste in which the must cases are valided... inconsequent.
--Statistician (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Age in Days
The Age in days column is unnecessary. It is regarded as necessary on the List of Oldest Persons page because (for example) two people might be listed next to each other, but they may have been born in completely different years and have lived a different number of leap years, which (marginally) impacts the number of days when compared. (So A born 1 February 1896 died 20 January 2007 has lived one day longer than B born 1 February 1897 died 20 January 2008. This cannot happen on this page, as everyone is listed together and will be born in the same year or immediately the year before or after. There can be no anomaly. The age in days column adds nothing to this site and I suggest it be removed for that reason. Quite some time ago I suggested footnoting the differences, which I did to the List of Oldest People site (it has now been changed to a full column) - but as I found no such problems on this site, I proposed no footnotes. It was not necessary. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I actually agree with Alan Davidson - my vote goes for the Age in Days column to go. Subjectively speaking, in addition to what had already been pointed out above, it rather uglified the table on my size screen, for no good purpose. I say toast it at the end of the month if there's a consensus for it. On a side note, I think the listing of the state/provinces on the chart is an additional uglifying factor, doesn't tell the average reader anything relevant about the individual (being 110 in Colombia vs. the United States is meaningful, I'm not so sure that Alabama vs. Minnesota is) and is useless to non-Americans/Canadians/Australians who don't know what the abbreviations stand for. Having said that, I don't really care and I wouldn't fight to remove it, but if I end up being the one to remove the Age in Days column (should we get that far), I'll probably remove the states/provinces as well, so speak now if you care. Cheers, CP 06:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I also agree. I think it's necessary on the table of the oldest ever people because there can be discrepancies. However the ranks are not affected. I don't feel it adds anything to the article. However with states and provinces, I feel they should be kept because I think they add a little more information to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiameseTurtle (talk • contribs) 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly enough to fight over this but my 2 cents would be to lose the Age in Days. I would say keep the States/Provinces. Having said that, whatever you guys/gals decide is fine with me. Regards --Npnunda (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- In that I am the person who set-up the column, let me point out that all three of the above users are wrong in saying that there are no disparities. And it is quite disheartening for one person to state something untrue and then for two others to agree to it. It makes it seem like the material wasn't reviewed at all. Please reference entries 72) Epsie Rike Wilson and 73) Catharina Peters-Keultjes, there is an 18 vs. 17 day difference; reference entries 40) Maria-Elisa Moro-Lucchini and 41) Bessie Roffey there is a 20 vs 21 day disparity. And these small differences occurred during a leap year 2008, there will be many more disparities during non-leap years 2009, 2010 etc. I'm not going to sit here and explain the mathematics behind it. I certainly feel the column should stay for its statistical value and to point out subtle disparities. As for the State/Province issue, this is in accordance with the GRG. It is also where all information is being obtained. It is "Country of Birth" and where (2) locations are listed, both "Country of Birth" and "Place of Immigration". This information is very valuable especially now that a lot of these supercentanarians no longer have individual pages. I am in favor of including this information purely for its demographic worth and perhaps renaming the column. TFBCT1 (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't bold the entry. The day difference is noted and I took it into account in my intial statement. The impact of the 17 or 18 day difference does not and cannot impact the order on the site. Whether there is a one day difference over 110 years is minor. On the "Oldest person" site the difference actually impacts the order (sometimes) - for example see position 33 where they both lived 114 years 218 days; but one lived 41,856 days and the orther 41,855 see also positions 52 and 53, where they lived the same by years and days, but a different length by days alone. Let me repeat, the difference on the Oldest Living Person site can never change the order - but it can on the Oldest Person site (because the birth dates start at different times). Alan Davidson (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- ...and it's still Original Research! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- They are not significant differences. The 'age in days' has been disputed on the list of 100 verified oldest people because ordering by days rather than years and days would actually change the order of the list. Here we see no such thing. If one person is 110 and 70 days and another is 110 and 40 days, it doesn't make any difference to put a new 'days' column in to show that one is actually 31 days older than the other. As the order doesn't change there is no purpose for the column; it just clutters the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiameseTurtle (talk • contribs) 01:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- To Alan, you clearly state above that showing "Age in days" is unecessary on this page because there are no disparities unlike the 100 list. I have now shown you that there are disparities. You can spin this however you'd like but I did not misinterpret what you wrote. Therefore it is valid documentation. The column, once again, in no way deviates from the original ranking or research by the GRG. And this is NOT original research- it is expressing the same data using a different statistical modology. Thanks much. TFBCT1 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly putting in accurate information from a calendar is not original research - but I agree with "Siamese Turtle" - "If one person is 110 and 70 days and another is 110 and 40 days, it doesn't make any difference to put a new 'days' column in to show that one is actually 31 days older than the other" It is unnecessary and unsightly. Alan Davidson (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- In that I am the person who set-up the column, let me point out that all three of the above users are wrong in saying that there are no disparities. And it is quite disheartening for one person to state something untrue and then for two others to agree to it. It makes it seem like the material wasn't reviewed at all. Please reference entries 72) Epsie Rike Wilson and 73) Catharina Peters-Keultjes, there is an 18 vs. 17 day difference; reference entries 40) Maria-Elisa Moro-Lucchini and 41) Bessie Roffey there is a 20 vs 21 day disparity. And these small differences occurred during a leap year 2008, there will be many more disparities during non-leap years 2009, 2010 etc. I'm not going to sit here and explain the mathematics behind it. I certainly feel the column should stay for its statistical value and to point out subtle disparities. As for the State/Province issue, this is in accordance with the GRG. It is also where all information is being obtained. It is "Country of Birth" and where (2) locations are listed, both "Country of Birth" and "Place of Immigration". This information is very valuable especially now that a lot of these supercentanarians no longer have individual pages. I am in favor of including this information purely for its demographic worth and perhaps renaming the column. TFBCT1 (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Changed - as the views expressed were 5 to 1 (6 to 1 if you include the comment about OR). Alan Davidson (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- To state the column was unsightly seems to be a personal target, please watch those types of comments as per Wikpedia guidelines. I am satisfied with the outcome. When I added the column, I said if there was a consensus against, please remove. Thank you. TFBCT1 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was a fair comment on the contribution, not the contributor. And it's not the first time or the first person either. Cheers, CP 04:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Per Wiktionary, definition of unsightly: utterly displeasing to the eye, ugly, disgusting. I do not feel this comment was appropriate to this contribution, or any contribution I have ever made in good faith. Perhaps I have a better understanding of the subtleties of the English language than most, but I do not yield on this point, the wording is at best combative, pejorative, and certainly not civil. TFBCT1 (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- To state the column was unsightly seems to be a personal target, please watch those types of comments as per Wikpedia guidelines. I am satisfied with the outcome. When I added the column, I said if there was a consensus against, please remove. Thank you. TFBCT1 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Unverified list
The paragraph before the second table states in part: "The following table presents a list of unverified living supercentenarians, who have not yet been officially recognized by an international body of gerontology, ... and who are awaiting validation." However, I understand that some will never be validated - as they have been examined, and while not refuted, cannot be proved. In other words, some people have been examined and remain unvalidated; and other people have not been exmined yet. I would like to know to which people this applies. Can this !be done? Alan Davidson (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
