Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Sortable table?

I'm not quite certain that I see the point of this. The table is already sorted by "rank", which is kind of the point of the whole article, and it doesn't even really sort some of the other columns effectively. Furthermore, it forces a break between people who are the same age, instead of merging them in one row, which makes a lot more stylistic sense in my opinion. What do others think? Cheers, CP 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I too question this. The sorts on dates of birth and dates of death do not work. The sort on name does so by first name. The sort of male-female does not offer much. The sort on age should give the same result as rank. The sort by country may be useful. I found the sort be race interesting. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For me it works on any column, except name (which does first name). To have sort by date work, one needs to select a date display format sorting by year (at Special:Preferences), or convert the dates to a format better suitable for tables: e.g. "2008-01-14". -- User:Docu

Agree with User:Canadian Paul. The attractiveness of the previous style outweighs the benefits of the sortable table, IMO. - fchd (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The sortable feature just adds an option to the table. If one doesn't want to re-sort it, one could easily not click on the sort icons. -- User:Docu

Obviously, but the point has been missed I think. The sorting option is practically useless, since it only effectively sorts by the rank and all of the other "interesting" sorts that Alan Davidson has mentioned have been summarized in totals by some kind individual, meaning we don't need to sort by race or country anymore if we want to see how many people come from race X (and see above for that discussion) or country Y. Furthermore, it has the detriment of ruining the style of the table, specifically the merging of the "rank" column for people of equal age. As can be seen through the talk page, people seem to think that was important and miss that feature, and one person not privy to this discussion (as far as I can tell) attempted to restore the merging of the table, therefore displaying that the appreciation for the old style goes beyond people commenting on this talk page. The consensus that seems to be emerging is that the sortable table needs the old heave-ho, which I will perform later this evening unless there is serious opposition to it. Cheers, CP 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that, if for some of the fields, the totals are sufficient, we might as well remove the columns from the table.

For the look, it should be sufficient to remove the number from the 2nd cell of persons with equal rank.

BTW you didn't comment on sorting by date of birth/death. -- User:Docu

The table documents the totals and assigns them to specific people. Putting all sixty-four white people in a row doesn't do much. I still don't think your solution solves the style problem in its entirety, but others of course may disagree, and it may be a compromise. As for sorting, if I understand you correct, which I'm not sure since I don't know exactly what you're referring to, Template: Longevity has a lot of other options and tables sorted by different criteria, but I'd need to know exactly what you had in mind to judge whether or not it may be useful. I'll leave it be for now, and encourage people to comment on at least the style compromise. Cheers, CP 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I could have against it are disadvantages to it (negative numbers). Zero's are not that. Anyways, it would be nice if we could sort the births and deaths, in chronology, but that I guess is only possible, like what Docu said, converted to numbers, and not dates. The thing listed the births/deaths by alphabetical month order by year first, which makes it useless. I'd vote to improve. I could ask around a Wikipedia-help desk and see if there's anyway around it. Neal (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

If you don't want to change Special:Preferences or use ISO (2008-01-14), another possibly would be to add sorting information as in List of United States Presidents by age. -- User:Docu

Seems pointless to me.DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has commented in a week, I'm going to do this. The consensus seems to be that the sorting is pointless. Having said that, the only actual detriment to it being here are stylistic concerns, specifically the merging of columns of people who have the exact same lifespans. Therefore, I think that the optimal solution is this: I will re-merge the relevant areas to regain the style, but retain the sorting mechanisms. This will, of course, disable the ability to sort but, if some use/new tool is discovered in the future, it will make returning to the sortable table a simple matter of unmerging the columns, rather than having to rebuild the sort function. Cheers, CP 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging cells breaks sorting, which makes calculating the totals error prone - I've reverted the cell merging. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-23t21:49z

I thought the consensus of the discussion on here that a sortable table was unnecessary? And in any case shouldn't calculating totals be considered original research??DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the user did not even read the talk page or the note I made when editing the table. I have reverted the changes. Cheers, CP 05:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I did read the discussion here, but I reverted because the merging breaks the sorting, which breaks the easy totaling. If DerbyCountyinNZ is correct that including the totals is OR and that the totals should be deleted from the key and totals section, then there's still a reason for the sorting: so readers can count the totals for themselves after sorting. If readers should not be allowed to do the totaling with the sort (because the information is not valid?), then the sorting can be removed, which means that the merging can be done. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-24t10:31z

The totals are not original research. All the information for totals is present in the source materials, but we present it in a different way, not only to above copyright violations, but also make the article more accessible to readers. It's hard to explain (especially first thing in the morning) but think of it as doing the same thing one does when they summarize from a source: all the information is there, it is simply being presented in a different fashion, yet one that is accurate and can easily be verified by observing the source material. Cheers, CP 16:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sortability is still rather a low concern for me. However; the detriment of being unable to merge individuals with same life spans for me went beyond aesthetics. It gave the appearance of different placement. I much prefer it this way. TFBCT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.33.131 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The sort function on this table does not work - at least it does not work for me - for any column. It makes a mess in every instance. Unless this can be explained or fixed it must be removed. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorting works when there are no merged cells. The question now is if totaling or merging (with one person still above the other) is more important. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-03t16:22z

I cannot find any valid Encyclopedic or Dictionary referrence for "White" or "Black" being associated with any current terms for race. I cannot even find any antiquated associations with these terms involving race. I'm not sure what the "O" is supposed to stand for in the table; it's not stated. It says O= Asian? If this is supposed to encompass the remainder of the world as in "other" that's a bit inadequate and condescending. If nobody can backup why these terms are being used under race; I propose removing "race" altogether from this table. TFBCT1 (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Race and Ethnicity Issue IV

1.Since Lusitanic is an ethnicity (relating to Portuguese), it is not a race so won't be listed. Likewise, we don't specify German or French. Same for Hispanic.

2.East Asian and South Asian are geographic. So they have been broken up. Indians and Asians aren't the same race. People from India subcontinent are known as Indic. There's also Indo-European, but, I don't consider them European either.

3.Asian is also continental. They have been changed to Oriental. Likewise, Blacks in Africa aren't listed as Africans, but Blacks.

4.Since Lucy D'Abreu is half-White, born to the U.K. family (and later moved to Scotland), I listed her as White. If her father is Indian (and thus an Indian last name), then we can change her to I for Indic or Indo-European if that's what consensus wants. Neal (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

And "W". "B" and "O" is just as much nonsense as what went before. Address my concern above. How would you label a Melanesian who is blacker skinned than any African or African-American? If you label then "Black" you would prove this classification is nonsense because Melanesians are no more related to people from Africa than they are to people from Europe. If you label them something else, it shows that the term 'Black" is not accurate. Just get rid of the race idea. As far as I can see it is defended only by a few regular editors here. When anyone else drifts in here, they oppose it. Another suggestion - put this up featured list status and see what the rest of the community thinks. I would put money on them saying that race has to go before it could reach featured list status. I might even do that myself when I have more time, but I am off on a wikibreak now for a few days. --Bduke (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How would I label a Melanesian who is blacker-skinned than any African American? Well gee - Black as a race isn't by color. Black meant African descent. Is Melanesian from Africa? So no, we didn't label Black by skin color, but by race. Neal (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

So you are saying Melanesian is a race? It would really help if we had an inclusive list of all the "races" you want to use on this article, and not just a list that covers the people currently listed. I would also like a good source for that inclusive list. It might mean that you know what you are talking about when you use the term "race". Myself, I have never known what it means. It just seems like a set of words that are used to demean or uplift people compared with others. Race has no scientific meaning. --Bduke (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not say Melanesian is a race. I said we used Black to denote African-descent, not by how dark of skin color. So Malaysians, Melanesians, etc., aren't Black as in African-descent. Clear? As per what particularly hypothetical races such as Pacific Islander or Middle East or Indic that we may not ever use in this decade, we won't have to worry about that since Wikipedia doesn't make "guesses" up. That's for the Gerontologt Research Group to decide on that. Again, we will have problems via conflicting or contradicting sources, and so and so forth. Neal (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

So, the GRC is your source? Then why is it not referenced to the GRC? Why are the two GRC links just under external links? You do not even follow the GRC as the first GRC link uses "White", "Black", "Oriental" and "Hispanic". The article uses "White", "Black" and "Asian" (abbreviated by "O"!!) only, with the Hispanics now labeled white. Just face it, mention of race is a complete mess with no basis in anything rational and it is offensive to many people. Why do you not take up my suggestion of seeking other views by putting the list up for featured status? --Bduke (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the GRG is our source. Okay, so the tables and data were references to the GRG, you want the symbols referenced to the GRG too? That can be done. I have no objection to that. GRG uses O for Oriental (same thing as Asian). Okay, the GRG uses Mestizo, which they used for Emiliano Mercado del Toro. If this table listed del Toro as White, then I could fix it. So you found a couple of mistakes - and that's how you conclude mentioning of race is a whole mess? Well, I certainly have no problem fixing all the mistakes and errors you can find (for the time being). Neal (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

I fixed the above errors you pointed out. As per what the symbols W, B, O, and M, stand for, etc., we already have a table that explains what they stand for. Do we need those to reference to GRG too? I think knowing what they stand for is pretty sufficient. Neal (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

The GRC source uses "Hispanic", not "Mestizo". They use it for Emiliano Mercado del Toro here and in the explanation under Table AA heading here. It is a complete mess. Are you going to put it up for featured list status to see what the wider community thinks? Why should we accept the GRC anyway as the only source for race. It is straight USA POV. Nobody other than Americans have this emphasis on race. --Bduke (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, I asked Robert Young about why supercentenarians from Spain were listed as White rather than Hispanic. That's when he revealed to me the truth that the red-colors names more specifically denoted Mestizo Hispanics. I'll probably ask him to change that in his tables so sources can be consistent (especially for your sake). As well as mine. Neal (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC).

FYI per the Hispanic section of Wikpedia its modern day definition is as follows: It now refers to the Spanish language, its speakers and its geographical distribution the same way Latin (Latino) refers to Romance languages in general. The corresponding term referring to Por tuguese is Lusitanic. It does not necessarily connote ethnicity. I dared to try something 'bold' that would make the page better since I had been taking care of it for awhile, but nonetheless I hand it back over to the Wikpedia super Gods who know best. Also, just because the GRG or Guiness do something in a certain manner doesn't make it sacrosanct or 'the best.' Lastly, I've found my experience on Wikpedia so far to be most unpleasant and unfriendly.72.209.33.131 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure enough, the Hispanic and Lusitanic article says a "term" that refers to the people of the Spanish and Portuguese speaking languages/countries. So what is term - an ethnicity or a race? Wikipedia neither says they are a race or ethnicity. If there was a word that categorized both Hispanic and Lusitanic, I'd say that should properly fit the Spain and Portugal category. Perhaps give another encyclopedia a shot? Wikipedia also mentioned a U.S. definition of Hispanic (by the U.S. federal government), in detail, but since this is a world supercentenarian list, I imagine consensus says we don't use that. As far as you finding your experience on Wikipedia so far to be unpleasant and unfriendly - well, for starters, I'd suggest not posting under an IP. That makes people remember you *much* more. Good etiquette as well. Neal (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

My apologies; I'm not used to this "having to login." And not all of Wikpedia is unpleasant, this area in particular. And remember Wikpedia encourages bold action, and intellectual curiousity, and of course accuracy. Under the "history" section where it states removed "unecessary crap" likely by "such and such" is not very welcoming for newer people looking to jump on board. However legitimate it might be there is clearly a lack of etiquette in such remarks. TFBCT1 (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC) (Tom)

I cannot find any valid Encyclopedic or Dictionary referrence for "White" or "Black" being associated with any current terms for race. I cannot even find any antiquated associations with these terms involving race. I'm not sure what the "O" is supposed to stand for in the table; it's not stated. It says O= Asian? If this is supposed to encompass the remainder of the world as in "other" that's a bit inadequate and condescending. If nobody can backup why these terms are being used under race; I propose removing "race" altogether from this table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TFBCT1 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the earlier discussions before commenting. It was sometime ago that the O was added to reflect the discussion page consensus. Alan Davidson (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the much earlier comments. The consensus was to use E (East Asian), S (South Asian), H (Hispanic) Meztizo. This is the way it was before I ever touched it. I'm truly sorry I did. I feel it's much for the worse now and was better off before. I just want to go on the record that the forestated was how it was before I attempted any adustments. TFBCT1 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am merely saying, this has all been dealt with at length; it will go back and forth if people do not read the discussion pages archived. I don't mind your view; but in 6 months someone may want it back; and so forth. Alan Davidson (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's just delete the column and be done with it. - fchd (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly.DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A much agreed third as stated in my first comments. Its time for it to go. TFBCT1 (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of your reasonings on why race should not be included are rather weak and meaningless. For example, you say race could not be scientifically determined. So why not remove it? Or potential problems of mixed races. And that the simplest solution is to simply get rid of it. And then for some people - we may not know their races. So why not get rid of it?

I'm afraid to tell you we don't know the genders of all these supercentenarians. Should we get rid of that? Yoshigiku Ito is listed as a male in Japan from 1856 to 1968. Then we found an article in Spain that lists him as a woman. Quite simply, how much evidence do we know Yoshigiku is a man? A mistake Guinness made. I asked a Japanese person what he felt if this was a male or female name. He was a little more sure Yoshigiku was female than male.

I can say listing gender is meaningless for the European side. We can just tell by the 1st name if it's a boy's name or girl's name. Do we need to know the genders of John and Mary? While gender is insignificant to Westerners, it is significant to the Eastern hemisphere. Asians names tend to be genderless. There is no standard on knowing whether a name in Chinese or Japanese is male or female. So no doubt, if you were Asian, you would feel the gender column is necessary. Quite frankly, the only Asians we have on our lists are from Japan, should we list genders exclusively just because of 1 country, Japan?

And then there are several Japanese cases we don't have a photo of, and none of us can "predict" whether a name sounds female or not. We would put 'F?' because we assume the person is more likely female than male. Obviously, who's to say any photo can determine a gender? My sister saw a bad photo of Jeanne Calment and thought she was a man. Some people on Robert Young's WOP group thought Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan looks like a man. Obviously, any old balding woman can look like a man.

So what does this mean? That means, scientifically, we could know someone's gender if we had a photo of them nude. If we don't have a photo of them nude, then there is no scientific way of knowing someone's gender especially if they are Asian.

So we don't have a nude photo of any of the supercentenarians. So there must be no scientific way of knowing their gender, correct?

But the point is - there is an objective truth out there. Just because we could never know whether an Asian name is female or not that died decades before we were born, that there is no objective truth out there. Who cares to argue that science can prove whether a skeleton was male or not?

Now, take me for example. I am half white and half Chinese. That is, a Chinese mom and White dad. And I am:

50% Chinese.
23.4375% Irish.
12.5% French.
12.5% German.
1.5625% English.

My Dad has a bad memory and does not keep that good of a tract. My Chinese Mom does not know my Dad's parents ethnicity. I got this down in a phone conversation with my Grandma in 2004, before she died. She died in 2006. Had I not had this from her, there is no scientific way for me to know my ethnicities in my life forever. No gene or anything. You can't take my blood sample, or examine my organs, and come up with the figures I have above. No science can prove that. So science cannot determine what I am. And neither can my Dad's memory. Does this mean there is no objective truth out there?

So you will ask me: what if someone is 1/4th White, 1/4th Black, 1/4th Asian, and 1/4th Hispanic. How now, should we put them as their race? Well - why not put all of them? So we know U.S. candidate Obama is half Black and half White, which might dominate as Black. But why not include both?

So if the race is known, then there is no conflict. I don't need any whiners regarding a couple supercentenarians who's gender is not known. If we don't know their race, like gender, we can leave it blank. Or put a question mark. Etc. Clear?

This leaves me the idea of bringing in ethnicities. I'd have to talk to Robert Youg about that - where the GRG could backtrack the ethnicities in their tables. Sure enough, we will some unknown with American supercentenarians. And unfortunately, if this is too hard of a concept to you, why should you get involved with it?

Now suppose you have a problem with integrating calculus equations. Does this mean you should get rid a Wikipedia article on integrating calculus equations? Why not let the people who can integrate calculus equations deal with that article? All you can ask is that they write the article as simplest enough for you to comprehend, and make learning easy.

Similarly, if we don't know the race or ethnicity of an individial, we leave it blank. The solution is not to get rid of it. We have a good idea on who the Jewish supercentenarians are. But no doubt, they are still categorized as White.

The U.S. census will list Emma Tillman as Black, but if we know she is 1/2 Black and 1/2 Native American, then we can list that. Why object to getting rid of details if we cannot have them for all?

Now I'll tell you my point of originally starting this section in this talk.

Hispanic and Lusitanic we say is neither a race nor an ethnicity, but a term. Well, we have continental races, such as Asian, European, and African. And by country, we have ethnicities, like French, Germany, Chinese, etc. So if Hispanic is another word for Spanish, and Lusitanic is another word for Portuguese, well then, Spanish and Portuguese are ethnicities. No doubt Hispanic and Lusitanic are too.

So I explained my reasoning on why I removed the Lusitanic and such. If we want to distinguish between someone ethnically from Spaina and Portugal, then why not distinguish a 'White' person from France or Germany? I currently have no objection to including ethnicity. But if we don't list ethnicity, well then, I explained why I removed the Hispanic and Lusitanic.

As with this Asian or Oriental, and so and so forth, I just want it consistent. Here are the potential options:

Type 1 Type 2
White European
Black African
Oriental Asian

And obviously, Native American, which is continental like my type 2, I imagine we don't have a word for them as a race. Native Americans are still Native Americans. Currently, I have the tables as type 1. If we want to move to type 2 column, I have no objection to that. Neal (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC).