![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Shouldn't she be said to be the oldest living person? I mean, according to San Slavador she is the oldest person. Also, she had her "128th" birthday yesterday. Yes, I relieze if she is really that old she would have had her first child when she was 37, then she had 12 more. There is a women named Janise Wulf whom gave birth to 12th child when she was 62. This is evidence enough that Cruz Hernandez having her first child when she was 37 is very likely! I am going to make an article about her, and I think you all should have her be called the oldest women on here, too. Dexter111344 22:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Well, I would if I new how! Dexter111344 22:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. I suppose you believe in UFO's, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster, too. This claim has not even applied to Guinness. Instead, they took the route of newspaper publicity. In any case, that's what the longevity claims article is for...for people like Cruz Hernandez whose claims of extreme age are NOT validated. → R Young { yakł talk} 10:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there is too much info included in the opening para. The opening para is usually a summary of the data from the rest of the article. This article is a set of lists of oldest people. The only info that deserves to be duplicated in the opening para are signficant facts from this list that our readers might want without having to read through the list.
It currently reads:
I believe the signficant facts that should be highlighted are:
I propose removing the following facts because they are not as significant and do not deserve to be highlighted. They distract from easy reading of the significant facts
As a result, I propose to remove the entire Shigechiyo Izumi paragraph and remove the extraneous facts about Jeanne Calment in about 7 days time.
If you disagree, then why. Or propose an alternative subset of the current facts.
Rye,
First I'd like to mention that the opening paragraph was written by Louis Epstein, originally as part of the 'supercentenarians' article, which was then butchered into two (now 'supercentenarians' and 'oldest people'). I think that the paragraphs are fine the way they are. Part of history is to relate past events to the present. To simply robotically state what the records are now, without giving a history of how those records came to be, is shortsighted. Also, the Izumi case, right or wrong, is very important for many reasons. First and foremost, Izumi is still listed by Guinness World Records as the oldest man ever. Second, the Izumi case represents a transitional phase from previously taking people at their word (thus Charlie Smith '137' years old) to expecting a higher standard (age verification process). That the Izumi case may have failed to meet expectations of veracity only points to the need of higher standards.
As for Jeanne Calment, it may seem colloquial that she met Vincent Van Gogh or Victor Hugo, but the whole point is that these are people, not robots; their age is significant in the context of surviving historic change, and the best way to relate the significance of their status is to note the historic changes in their lifetime.
Also, Wikipedia has 'lots of free space' and so spacing is not an issue. Let's NOT go around tearing down others' work when it appears that it has stood a long time (3+ years).
Regards Robert Young → R Young { yakł talk} 10:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Rye,
First off, 'gentrology' is a little-used Britishism, and I am tired of the Brits trying to dictate Britishisms to Americans. Last I checked, the word had a total of just 3 unique hits on Google, from North England and Vancouver, Canada. Hence, it seems like a newly-coined term and certainly NOT one that others would expect to use.
Further, I completely disagree with your historical reference to King Henry VIII. In King Henry's time, reaching 80 years old would have been significant, and perhaps 90 in that time would be comparable to 110 today. Thus, your argument fails to see the contextual change over time. To me, Jeanne Calment must exist in context to be significant. Suppose 500 years from now, people are living to 150 with regularity. In that sense, Jeanne Calment would be significant only in the context of being "122 in 1997."
I begrudingly did not oppose the supercentenarians/oldest people separation because I realized that if someone were the 'oldest person' at 109 in the 1960's, they would not be a 'supercentenarian' using the 110+ definition. That said, I don't think "List of Oldest People" is appropriate...what about 'oldest people to climb Mount Everest,' 'oldest conjoined twins' 'oldest veterans' etc. There needs to be a specificity to 'oldest documented persons' or 'world's oldest authenticated persons' or something to that effect. Thus, I don't think a simple 'list' format is a good idea.
As for being 'bold.' There's an old saying, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Aside from you, no one has objected to the article's format or intro. Just one person. Thus, you are creating work from a minority standpoint while destroying valuable context, in order to reformat the article to your worldview. Aside from minor mistakes like misspelling 'copied,' I don't like anything you have here to offer. → R Young { yakł talk} 04:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I propose to replace the opening paragraph with the following. User:Ryoung122 disagrees. Let us have your opinons on the value of this entire change, or any useful parts of it, so that we can reach a consensus.
The existing intro paragraph was taken from a section of the supercentenarian article when this article was split off about 3 months ago.
My reasons for changing are:
-- Rye1967 21:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, version 3 looks better. → R Young { yakł talk} 22:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I added Henry Allingham to the list on the occassion of his 110th birthday, but removed Chojo Fukuhara. A google search of his name reveals only three wikipedia mirrors, and www.grg.org does not list him on their lists of supercentenarians. [1]. If anyone can prove that he exists/is still alive, please re-add him. Canadian Paul 21:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
As noted, this is not a make-believe case. Please contact me for more information.
Also, I think the Henry Allingham case has received more media attention than due. Who knows who is the oldest woman in the UK currently? Did you know there are 9 women in the UK older than Mr Allingham. Can you name them. → R Young { yakł talk} 15:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Might I add that I respect Henry Allingham as a WWI veteran. However, that's what the 'Surviving Veterans of WWI' page is for...all veterans are listed there, even if not the 'oldest'. Mr Allingham's age at barely 110 is still a 'rookie' and when all the data is on, he's probably not in the top 100 in the world yet (including women).→ R Young { yakł talk} 15:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm convinced enough certainly. If anyone else has their doubts, they can contact you for more details. Canadian Paul 16:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Could we order the sections here as on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Standard_headings_and_ordering and include only links not listed before as per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also? Are there a specific reasons not to do so? -- User:Docu
Docu, A few issues to resolve:
1. What do you want to change?
2. Why? Is the 'format' more important than the information? I think not.
Consider that the tables are in a logical sequence. What would people want to know first? Historic 'oldest people' is most likely, so its first. Women tend to outlive men, so the women are listed first. It makes sense.
To go back and change articles for the sake of some 'manual of style' is silly. Whose manual of style? Is it 'capitalization' or 'capitalisation'? Chicago style, APA style? Give me a break. The bottom line is, the article is fine the way it is now and doesn't need alteration to fit some parochial version of conformity.→ R Young { yakł talk} 23:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In the discussion of 'top 10' or 110+, the original intent was to have a 'top 10' list, but at one point there were only 9 living cases 110+. So, that's where the headline came from. I guess it could be argued to include all living male cases 110+, but that's not the point. Moreover, it's not fair to the females...do we list all the females 110+? In fact, we instead have 'top 10 oldest persons' including two males. So, men already get a break, being listed both ways, and getting to be included if far younger. We still have women from 1893 not listed yet. So, I think it's more than fair to just do a 'top 10 males' list.
Also, about the UK comment...one would think that an article on Henry Allingham, plus a separate listing under living WWI veterans would be enough. Trying to make Henry fit the table instead of vice versa is putting the cart before the horse. If he lives long enough, he'll make the table naturally. What, do you think the UK is 'crippled' and needs a 'crutch' (affirmative action standards) to be included? You don't think Mr Allingham can compete with the rest of the world? Think about it. Finally, one would hope that people would be a little less self-centered and parochial, and try to learn about other people around the world instead of just those in their area. Finally, you don't know if Mr Allingham is really next in line or not, do you? Another male might be born between the current #10 and Mr Allingham. Think about it.
P.S.: the issue with me is not really the UK per se, but things being blown out of proportion. Again, there are 9 women in the UK older than Mr Allingham (including Emmeline Brice, 111; Nellie Fields, 111; Annie Knight, 111). I think it is regretttable that women are once again related to second-class citizens...being ignored while the 'alpha males' are placed front and center, breaking the rules to get there. → R Young { yakł talk} 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Greetings,
What about the oldest living Russian Orthodox priest, born Dec 19 1896? There's also George Francis, born June 6 1896...the 'oldest man' list has still more cases out there...→ R Young { yakł talk} 08:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is the validation to put them on the list, I know... Robert, do you have a contact for the Russian priest or for George Francis, i.e. is there some hope that these cases will be validated? I want a top 10, and not a 110+, but does someone know who the next men are after Aimé Avignon? The gap between him and the next two men I know of (Scarrabelotti from Australia and Arvonen from Finland - both born 04.08.1897) is too big to believe that there isn't anybody to fill it. Or what do you think? Should someone ask on the "WorldOldestPeople" mailing list? Statistician 12.02.2007 17:07 (CET)
Greetings,
It should be noted that the United States is ONE country, not 50 separate entities. It's one thing to label states, but the 'USA' label SHOULD be included. To not do so promotes a false view that Tennesee, for example, is a separate nation. It also divides the USA cases up so as to make the USA appear less substantial. If we can do Miyazaki, Japan why not Tennessee, USA? → R Young { yakł talk} 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
There is NO reason to delete the links to articles like 'supercentenarians' and 'centenarians' while inserting silly links to inanimate objects like 'oldest companies'. For someone supposedly responsible, these edits are a waste of time and childish. → R Young { yakł talk} 09:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Shouldn't she be said to be the oldest living person? I mean, according to San Slavador she is the oldest person. Also, she had her "128th" birthday yesterday. Yes, I relieze if she is really that old she would have had her first child when she was 37, then she had 12 more. There is a women named Janise Wulf whom gave birth to 12th child when she was 62. This is evidence enough that Cruz Hernandez having her first child when she was 37 is very likely! I am going to make an article about her, and I think you all should have her be called the oldest women on here, too. Dexter111344 22:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Well, I would if I new how! Dexter111344 22:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. I suppose you believe in UFO's, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster, too. This claim has not even applied to Guinness. Instead, they took the route of newspaper publicity. In any case, that's what the longevity claims article is for...for people like Cruz Hernandez whose claims of extreme age are NOT validated. → R Young { yakł talk} 10:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there is too much info included in the opening para. The opening para is usually a summary of the data from the rest of the article. This article is a set of lists of oldest people. The only info that deserves to be duplicated in the opening para are signficant facts from this list that our readers might want without having to read through the list.
It currently reads:
I believe the signficant facts that should be highlighted are:
I propose removing the following facts because they are not as significant and do not deserve to be highlighted. They distract from easy reading of the significant facts
As a result, I propose to remove the entire Shigechiyo Izumi paragraph and remove the extraneous facts about Jeanne Calment in about 7 days time.
If you disagree, then why. Or propose an alternative subset of the current facts.
Rye,
First I'd like to mention that the opening paragraph was written by Louis Epstein, originally as part of the 'supercentenarians' article, which was then butchered into two (now 'supercentenarians' and 'oldest people'). I think that the paragraphs are fine the way they are. Part of history is to relate past events to the present. To simply robotically state what the records are now, without giving a history of how those records came to be, is shortsighted. Also, the Izumi case, right or wrong, is very important for many reasons. First and foremost, Izumi is still listed by Guinness World Records as the oldest man ever. Second, the Izumi case represents a transitional phase from previously taking people at their word (thus Charlie Smith '137' years old) to expecting a higher standard (age verification process). That the Izumi case may have failed to meet expectations of veracity only points to the need of higher standards.
As for Jeanne Calment, it may seem colloquial that she met Vincent Van Gogh or Victor Hugo, but the whole point is that these are people, not robots; their age is significant in the context of surviving historic change, and the best way to relate the significance of their status is to note the historic changes in their lifetime.
Also, Wikipedia has 'lots of free space' and so spacing is not an issue. Let's NOT go around tearing down others' work when it appears that it has stood a long time (3+ years).
Regards Robert Young → R Young { yakł talk} 10:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Rye,
First off, 'gentrology' is a little-used Britishism, and I am tired of the Brits trying to dictate Britishisms to Americans. Last I checked, the word had a total of just 3 unique hits on Google, from North England and Vancouver, Canada. Hence, it seems like a newly-coined term and certainly NOT one that others would expect to use.
Further, I completely disagree with your historical reference to King Henry VIII. In King Henry's time, reaching 80 years old would have been significant, and perhaps 90 in that time would be comparable to 110 today. Thus, your argument fails to see the contextual change over time. To me, Jeanne Calment must exist in context to be significant. Suppose 500 years from now, people are living to 150 with regularity. In that sense, Jeanne Calment would be significant only in the context of being "122 in 1997."
I begrudingly did not oppose the supercentenarians/oldest people separation because I realized that if someone were the 'oldest person' at 109 in the 1960's, they would not be a 'supercentenarian' using the 110+ definition. That said, I don't think "List of Oldest People" is appropriate...what about 'oldest people to climb Mount Everest,' 'oldest conjoined twins' 'oldest veterans' etc. There needs to be a specificity to 'oldest documented persons' or 'world's oldest authenticated persons' or something to that effect. Thus, I don't think a simple 'list' format is a good idea.
As for being 'bold.' There's an old saying, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Aside from you, no one has objected to the article's format or intro. Just one person. Thus, you are creating work from a minority standpoint while destroying valuable context, in order to reformat the article to your worldview. Aside from minor mistakes like misspelling 'copied,' I don't like anything you have here to offer. → R Young { yakł talk} 04:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I propose to replace the opening paragraph with the following. User:Ryoung122 disagrees. Let us have your opinons on the value of this entire change, or any useful parts of it, so that we can reach a consensus.
The existing intro paragraph was taken from a section of the supercentenarian article when this article was split off about 3 months ago.
My reasons for changing are:
-- Rye1967 21:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, version 3 looks better. → R Young { yakł talk} 22:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I added Henry Allingham to the list on the occassion of his 110th birthday, but removed Chojo Fukuhara. A google search of his name reveals only three wikipedia mirrors, and www.grg.org does not list him on their lists of supercentenarians. [1]. If anyone can prove that he exists/is still alive, please re-add him. Canadian Paul 21:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
As noted, this is not a make-believe case. Please contact me for more information.
Also, I think the Henry Allingham case has received more media attention than due. Who knows who is the oldest woman in the UK currently? Did you know there are 9 women in the UK older than Mr Allingham. Can you name them. → R Young { yakł talk} 15:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Might I add that I respect Henry Allingham as a WWI veteran. However, that's what the 'Surviving Veterans of WWI' page is for...all veterans are listed there, even if not the 'oldest'. Mr Allingham's age at barely 110 is still a 'rookie' and when all the data is on, he's probably not in the top 100 in the world yet (including women).→ R Young { yakł talk} 15:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm convinced enough certainly. If anyone else has their doubts, they can contact you for more details. Canadian Paul 16:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Could we order the sections here as on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Standard_headings_and_ordering and include only links not listed before as per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also? Are there a specific reasons not to do so? -- User:Docu
Docu, A few issues to resolve:
1. What do you want to change?
2. Why? Is the 'format' more important than the information? I think not.
Consider that the tables are in a logical sequence. What would people want to know first? Historic 'oldest people' is most likely, so its first. Women tend to outlive men, so the women are listed first. It makes sense.
To go back and change articles for the sake of some 'manual of style' is silly. Whose manual of style? Is it 'capitalization' or 'capitalisation'? Chicago style, APA style? Give me a break. The bottom line is, the article is fine the way it is now and doesn't need alteration to fit some parochial version of conformity.→ R Young { yakł talk} 23:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In the discussion of 'top 10' or 110+, the original intent was to have a 'top 10' list, but at one point there were only 9 living cases 110+. So, that's where the headline came from. I guess it could be argued to include all living male cases 110+, but that's not the point. Moreover, it's not fair to the females...do we list all the females 110+? In fact, we instead have 'top 10 oldest persons' including two males. So, men already get a break, being listed both ways, and getting to be included if far younger. We still have women from 1893 not listed yet. So, I think it's more than fair to just do a 'top 10 males' list.
Also, about the UK comment...one would think that an article on Henry Allingham, plus a separate listing under living WWI veterans would be enough. Trying to make Henry fit the table instead of vice versa is putting the cart before the horse. If he lives long enough, he'll make the table naturally. What, do you think the UK is 'crippled' and needs a 'crutch' (affirmative action standards) to be included? You don't think Mr Allingham can compete with the rest of the world? Think about it. Finally, one would hope that people would be a little less self-centered and parochial, and try to learn about other people around the world instead of just those in their area. Finally, you don't know if Mr Allingham is really next in line or not, do you? Another male might be born between the current #10 and Mr Allingham. Think about it.
P.S.: the issue with me is not really the UK per se, but things being blown out of proportion. Again, there are 9 women in the UK older than Mr Allingham (including Emmeline Brice, 111; Nellie Fields, 111; Annie Knight, 111). I think it is regretttable that women are once again related to second-class citizens...being ignored while the 'alpha males' are placed front and center, breaking the rules to get there. → R Young { yakł talk} 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Greetings,
What about the oldest living Russian Orthodox priest, born Dec 19 1896? There's also George Francis, born June 6 1896...the 'oldest man' list has still more cases out there...→ R Young { yakł talk} 08:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is the validation to put them on the list, I know... Robert, do you have a contact for the Russian priest or for George Francis, i.e. is there some hope that these cases will be validated? I want a top 10, and not a 110+, but does someone know who the next men are after Aimé Avignon? The gap between him and the next two men I know of (Scarrabelotti from Australia and Arvonen from Finland - both born 04.08.1897) is too big to believe that there isn't anybody to fill it. Or what do you think? Should someone ask on the "WorldOldestPeople" mailing list? Statistician 12.02.2007 17:07 (CET)
Greetings,
It should be noted that the United States is ONE country, not 50 separate entities. It's one thing to label states, but the 'USA' label SHOULD be included. To not do so promotes a false view that Tennesee, for example, is a separate nation. It also divides the USA cases up so as to make the USA appear less substantial. If we can do Miyazaki, Japan why not Tennessee, USA? → R Young { yakł talk} 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
There is NO reason to delete the links to articles like 'supercentenarians' and 'centenarians' while inserting silly links to inanimate objects like 'oldest companies'. For someone supposedly responsible, these edits are a waste of time and childish. → R Young { yakł talk} 09:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)