Talk:Besse Cooper

Became oldest living Georgian

She couldn't have become the "oldest living Georgian" in 2007 if someone else was older:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-21-beatrice-farve_N.htm

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2008/03/27/met_192432.shtml

Duh.Ryoung122 01:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Duh" indeed. There's certainly a ref that says she was...how about using a little WP:AGF? Ref says she was...your edit said she wasn't with no competing citation...what's an editor to do?  Frank  |  talk  02:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert knows what hes doing, hes the one who studies them and therefore has all the information. 65.0.30.118 (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any disagreement on that point. Alas, that's not how Wikipedia works.  Frank  |  talk  12:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We should still let the gerontologists do their job, they know what their doing. 67.33.127.117 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course; nobody is stopping them from doing their jobs. But we still have policies here, which we still must follow.  Frank  |  talk  03:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Incumbent

If there's anything in the wikipedia or wiktionary entries for "Incumbent" that suggests the use of that word in a succession box about longevity, it's exceedingly well-hidden. This is all of a piece with the deeply unencyclopedic view that old age is a contest, whose "winners," "record-holders," and "record-breakers" are inherently notable. David in DC (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Incumbent" shares its root with "encumber," offering the sense that an incumbent encumbers other aspiring office holders from holding a given office by occupying it. If used conversationally, referring to the "incumbent" oldest living Georgian (for example) most literate Americans would understand the phrase, and not argue the usage. If there is a guideline indicating that all syntax must be endorsed in the wiki, it's equally well-hidden.

Every one of us endeavors to live another day; the party who has done so for the longest period of time is therefore a person of note, though not in the traditionally "encyclopedic" sense; the Wiki, though often drawing its guidelines around the traditionally "encyclopedic" standards and norms, cannot and will not ever be a traditional encyclopedia.

I have missed where anyone has named any "winners," "record-holders," or "record-breakers" among those who gained notice (in reliable sources like newspapers and magazines) for their longevity. 67.236.29.150 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Washington Post article

The article which is the first ref on the page no longer seems to be on Washington Post site. Other news sites have post posted it though I note with the Washington Post byline or it's possibly archived somewhere, if someone wants to fix it appropriately. It is "Japan’s oldest person, 115-year-old Chiyono Hasegawa, dies". Washington Post, December 2, 2011.Number36 (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please Conform to Encyclopedic Standards

Encyclopedic standards should write about a topic, even if relatively recent, as if it is not a current event, but as an encyclopedia entry. It therefore follows that writing about Ms. Cooper becoming the last verified person left from 1896 on December 2, 2011 is more encyclopedic (the date will always be the same, unless a surprise case emerges) than stating that she "is" the last person left from 1896. No need to write in the present tense.69.15.219.71 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fanboy fluff

In what universe is making the top 15 of anything a "Milestone"? No-one makes Top-15 lists of anything. Such lists are usually an order of magnitude (10, 100) and occasionally double/half of that (5, 20, 50). There is no justification for including this sort of non-notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In the very small world of supercentenarians, any move up the ladder is significant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Any move? Then where's the entry for her moving up to 14th on the list a few days ago? -- Foetusized (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's waiting to be posted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

15 is within 20, 50, or 100 (your numbers), numbers of galaxies & stars exceed 6 billion, small comparison set; likely to be noted regardless of highest position, could break into top 10 in 4 months. Dru of Id (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at WP:ANI, where the first respondent noted that Derby has misused tyhe rollback feature, along with the absurdity of using the term "fanboy". I don't think this article's subject is a rock star or a professional athlete. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Derby - making the assertion that "no-one makes top-15 lists of anything" is, at best, hard to prove, since it's a negative. At the risk of getting off the point, here are three queries, each with multiple hits for such lists. The real point, however, is that there isn't consensus for the removal you have made repeatedly, and since the edit isn't against any policy I know of, I think your best bet is to find consensus on wording you can live with rather than edit-warring (or worse). I don't think this belongs at ANI - and said so there; hopefully we can resolve this here.  Frank  |  talk  13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite right, it is impossible to prove a negative. On the other hand it is entirely possible to prove a positive, in thsi case that making the Top 15 is notable. So, is there any citation for a Top 15 list of oldest people? Is there even a mention anywhere in a "WP:RS that "Besse Cooper is now "one of the top 15 oldest people"? Because if there isn't then it can hardly be considered notable, more a case of fanboy fluff by playing with numbers. Is there even anywhere in wikipedia that has a top 15 list of anything with the scope of oldest people (subjective, one-off/annual lists of musicians/actors can hardly be compared to an objective all-time list!)? And what about the other milestones? Did making the Top 20, a far more legitimate figue for a to plist, become redundant when she made the "Top 15"? Milestones don't cease to be milestones when another milestone is reached. The fact is that making the top 15 is NOT a milestone at all. Being the 15th oldest verified person is notable, and could/should be mentioned in the lead. Making the Top 10 would (hopefully will) be a milestone and there are even two bites at that cherry because there is a Top 10 undisputed and a Top 10 verified and the reason these can be considered milestones while Top 15 cannot is that top 10 lists are common and even wiki has a top 10 list of Oldest people. Claiming that top 15 is notable is just a case of a few editors with an insufficent grasp of notablilty saying "Ooh, look, Besse Cooper's moved form 16th to 15th (and then 14th and back to 15th again) on the list, I think that's notable so I'll add it as a milestone". That's not notable, that's WP:OR. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a top 100 list, and she's 15th on it. What's with this "fanboy" stuff? This is not a rock star or a professional athlete we're talking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've misconstrued you DerbyCountyinNZ, but your argument, and editing on this, appear to lack perspective about the relative importance of this issue. Secondly as you say that being the 15th oldest person in the world is notable then, by your own argument, it is a milestone, i.e. as defined in this context, an important, notable, or significant event.Number36 (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You have misconstrued. Being the 15th oldest person is not the same as becoming one of the 15 oldest people. The latter implies that 15th or more significant than 14th or 16th or any other more number between 10 and 20. Being 15th is significant enough to mention it in the lede, becoming 15th is NOT significant, there being a continuing failure of any to produce any evidence to suggest that it is. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What's your evidence for the "fanboy" comment? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well then I'm sorry again Derby, but I didn't misconstrue, your editing does display a lack of perspective on the importance of this point. Secondly, your argument here doesn't work, if it's significant that she is the 15th oldest, then it is significant that she became the 15th oldest. They're simply two ways of stating the same fact.Number36 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No they're not. Being the 15th oldest is insignificantly more notable than being the 14th or 16th, or in fact any position between 10th and 20th. This information can go in the lede e.g. "Cooper is the 15th oldest" and can change as necessary. Claiming that becoming "one of the 15th oldest" implies that 15 is a significant number, far more significant than being 16th, and that she has made some fanciful list somewhere which only inlcudes the 15 oldest people. There is no such list, therefore becoming one of the 15 oldest is not a milestone! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Yes they are, and 2. It implies no such thing. Becoming one of the 15 oldest people ever works just fine as a milestone, as I explained the definition in this context above. Counting by groupings of five is a very common system, so noting 15th, 10th, 5th, then presumbably 3-2-1, Blastoff, <ahem>... if it comes to that would be perfectly natural. There's nothing wrong whatsoever with noting this on the list, the consensus appears to be that it should stay and there's no substantial reason to actively remove it.Number36 (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If groups of 5 are so important why isn't every other group of 5 included in the milestones??? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant, not a valid argument to remove it from the list, and also isn't what I asserted.Number36 (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If every group of 5 was mentioned on this page, it would clutter up this page terribly with numbers like 95, 90, 85, 80, etc. 15 is added because it is closest to the front of the list. Jay72091 (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, and yet there is a claim above that groups of 5 are impotant. Clearly some are more "important" than others. So is 15 more improtant than 20 (which is not mentioned)? How many top 20 lists are there compared to top 15 lists? The truth is some fanboy decided for no particular reason to chuck in a so-called milestone for no worthwhile reason because that is what fanboys do! Now that the top 10 milestones have been included the top 15 (notice how there is only 1, yet 2 for top 10?) becomes even less of a "milestone". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There you go again with that "fanboy" nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say groups of 5 were 'important', I said it was a common system. Since no one has proposed including every grouping of five that's a straw man of a reductio ad absurdum argument, and totally irrelevant.

Frankly the accusation that someone included this because they were a 'fanboy' is bizarre, we're talking about a supercentenarian here not a superheroNumber36 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made that point before and he's ignored it. I have to figure that he really doesn't know what the term "fanboy" means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it is impossible to prove a negative; rather that it is hard. I bring this point up not to be pedantic, but because the word choice was deliberate, and in a similar vein, I'd also say that it isn't always possible to "prove a positive" as you assert. Surely you've tangled with WP:N enough to know that notability isn't a concrete thing. We wouldn't have much need for WP:AFD or WP:PROD if notability were as clearly defined (and universally agreed!) as you seem to be implying. The key is WP:CONSENSUS, as it has more or less always been around here. It's very hard to argue "that particular sentence doesn't belong in this article because it's not notable" and get community support for removal on that basis. Having said that, I'm not a real fan of trivia lists that get so long as to essentially be summed up as "she's old"; I'm not arguing for the status quo here either. I think we can do better. But on the matter of 15th, it does not appear there is any consensus to remove that at this time.  Frank  |  talk  15:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

When I was born

When I was born,there were no cars,radios,televions,airplanes,or computers