This article is within the scope of WikiProject World's Oldest People, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is not to include time zone information. AlbinoFerret 21:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
In the "Chronological list of oldest people" sections, should the time zones in which the people live be taken in to account? Ollie231213 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Ollie231213 (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Time zones, in my view, should not be taken account when determining the date on which someone became the World's oldest person/man. For example, Jiroemon Kimura died on 12 June 2013 at 2:08am Japanese time, but it was still 11 June 2013 in American where Salustiano Sanchez - the next World's oldest man - lived, so he was listed as becoming the W.O.M. on "11 June 2013". But let me make a couple of points:
1. The GRG only lists the DAY of birth & death of each case, because in most cases, an exact time of birth and death are not recorded.
2. There may have been other cases in the past where a difference in time zones has meant that the former and new W.O.P. or W.O.M. were in different time zones at the time of the older person's death, but we just don't know about it.
3. If you're going to start considering time zones, then you also need to consider the reader's time zone. Yes, it may have been 11 June in America when Sanchez took the title, but if you lived in Japan then it was actually 12 June. It wasn't 11 June everywhere.
4. GWR said here: "GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS ™, the global authority on record breaking achievements, announces 112-year-old Salustiano Sanchez Blazquez from Grand Island, New York, as the new world’s Oldest living man. The record is announced on the heels of the recent passing of Japanese 116-year-old Jiroemon Kimura, who was recognized as the Oldest man ever and died on June 12th, 2013." ---> There is no mention of time zones, and the GRG does not consider time zones either. Furthermore, I see no other source which mentions the time zone issue either, so this seems to be a form of original research.
5. More than anything, it just seems ridiculous to have someone as becoming the W.O.M. a day before the previous person died.
Therefore, I think that in this scenario we should consider days as discrete values, and not concern ourselves with time zones. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
FactJiroemon Kimura died at 2.08 am 12 June 2013 local time, as stated in his article.
Fact At the time of Kimura's death the date was 11 June 2013 local time for Salustiano Sanchez and also UTC. 11 June is noted in Salustiano's article as the date he became the oldest person in both the infobox and succession box.
Fact Wikipedia is not the GRG and is under no obligation to include/exclude any information just because the GRG does so.
To imply that Salustiano became the oldest man on 12 June by omitting the known difference in time zones is incorrect and misleading. There is nothing ridiculous about this, the additional note clarifies this for the user.
Whether or not the difference in time zones might affect any other such succession of world's oldest man/woman/person is irrelevant, in this case it is known.
So you're quite happy to violate WP:SYNTH when it suits you, then? And like I've said before, although Wikipedia is not the GRG, it uses it as a souce, like it does with Guinness World Records. Neither mention the time zone issue, so why should Wikipedia? And you haven't addressed my third point: It wasn't 11 June everywhere in the world at the time. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment - (1)The time zone of the reader of the article should not (and really can't) be taken into account. Also, It's effectively never the same day everywhere in the world. (2) The sources for this information almost all use local dates, and times if included, so so should we. If a specific item seems confusing, one of those little notes such as are already in the article can be added to explain the perceived discrepancy. (3) If for some reason the times need to be expressed in hours, rather than days (e.g., to put the list in order or if a person died after a very short time), and providing the local time information is available from reliable sources, WP:Original research states that "Routine calculations do not count as original research" and that calculating a person's age is an example of routine calculations.—Anne Delong (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Well ok, maybe it's not original research. But I've had discussions on other articles in this project where people have argued that it's a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to use someone's nationality to conclude which continent they're from. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Do not include time zones. Wikipedia proceeds, in constructing articles, under the rule of notability. Wikipedia is not a place where disputes are settled, nor a depository of records, nor a statistical lab for the most precise calculations possible. The question of "longest living persons" is reported around the world (and this is trivially proved) by stating years, months & days lived. Alternatively, in what amounts to exactly the same thing, the media reports date, month & year of birth. This is what is literally notable and, therefore, this is what Wikipedia articles should be reporting, as well. -The Gnome (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment If you feel it is important to resolve possible confusion with local times, perhaps you can add a (GMT DATE/time) note behind to potentially conficting/confusing dates. Referencing a stadard like this should be readily understandable to readers as that should be a familiar concept to anyone thinking globally. This will also avoid the need to convert times between every potential pair of time zones. Nyth63 12:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Do not Include Time Zones- It is just not relevant AND it won't accomplish anything. If you want to include time zones then you should take into account how many leap years occurred in their life time because they are in reality that many days older than the calendar says. If they died two year before the next leap year do your subtract an additional half day from their life span. It is just silly. Besides how many of the oldest people on earth die within minutes of each other? With all due respect, what would listing the time zone prove given all of the other variables? I think it is just a waste of time to discuss it. My opinion. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Most of the comments above seem to have missed the point. It was never the intention that time zones be included in this article. The contention here is that the removal of a note which clarifies that in one identified instance the difference in time zone means that the date on which a person died was not the same as the date at which their successor became the oldest person. To disregard this is to introduce factually incorrect information into the article. To omit the note explaining this will lead to confusion for the casual reader (and no doubt endless attempts to "fix" the discrepancy. DerbyCountyinNZ(TalkContribs) 04:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no issues with adding an explanitary note, but I believe referencing the GMT date/time would make the most sense. Nyth63 14:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how it will confuse people to say that "predecessor died on day X, therefore, successor took the title on day X". Given that the GRG and GWR just list the days on which people died, it shouldn't confuse people. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
For such a non-issue, this is getting rather silly and complex. How about we simply note that when an incumbent dies, the next person to have the oldest person crown is considered to have inherited it according to the time zone of the deceased. That way we need not fuss over this time zone non-issue. Are we otherwise going to root back and find out when all the previous record-holders died and determine what the day was in another time zone for the new record holders? Canada Jack (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep it simple. An RFC for this? - Cwobeel(talk) 14:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Do not include. Seems you would not have nearly complete data to resolve this issue. The reporting will generally be in local time, and we must follow sources, so no sense in trying to do borderline WP:OR to include time zone information. That said, when local reporting would otherwise seemingly lead to reader confusion, a footnote explaining the date disparity is appropriate. Cool HandLuke 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The section "Timeline of verified oldest living persons since 1955" doesn't seem to be necessary at all since it is based on the same information as the "Chronological list of the verified oldest living person since 1955" table. Rpvt (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how either of the 2 charts add anything particularly useful to the article. DerbyCountyinNZ(TalkContribs) 03:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Data visualizations are valuable tools for highlighting information buried in tables and lists. The intent is to draw interest in the list and to encourage the reader to follow more wikilinks. If not for the chart, I would never have read the fascinating biography of Jeanne CalmentNyth63 18:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
User Inception2010 added "Anonymous" to the list of oldest living people. I removed it the other day and he/she reverted it back. It looks like this person has made questionable edits elsewhere. If other editors could help me keep an eye edits by that editor here I'd appreciate it. Mantisia (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)