Talk:Józef Kowalski (supercentenarian)

"Claim"

The word "claim" is to be generally avoided on Wikipedia, as it is seen to connote the possibility of falsehood. Is there any reason that the word "claim" is necessary in this article? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A note on "claim." The word in fact is used on numerous articles on the subject of longevity. On the page which lists verified CLAIMS of those over 110, we see these words: "This article is about validated specific supercentenarian claims by modern standards." The word "claim" does not connote falsehood, it connotes something subject to verification. "Claims" can be shown to be false, or verified. Canada Jack (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This seems entirely sensible. Contrary to Joefromrandb's opinion use of the word "thought" implies a degree of surety which is not borne out by any facts. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not about my opinion; it's about long-standing consensus that the word "claim" should be avoided. I'd be quick to agree that my choice of "thought" is also not the best; feel free to change it to something better. Just not "claimed". Joefromrandb (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong forum. Take that beef to WT:Words to avoid. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh, correct forum. Two editors agree "claimed" is entirely appropriate in this context. Please familiarize yourself with what is meant by "claim" in this context on the various longevity pages. A "claim" is an assertion of an age - claims are either verified, or not. See the lede of Oldest people where it reads... "In these tables, a supercentenarian is considered 'verified' if his or her claim has been validated by an international body..." or this on the List of the oldest verified people page: "This article is about validated specific supercentenarian claims by modern standards. For modern, or complete, unvalidated supercentenarian claims, see Longevity claims. For historical, incomplete unvalidated supercentenarian claims, see Longevity myths." Indeed, there is a page therein mentioned called Longevity claims. Use of the word "claim" in these contexts reflects the fact that in this subject these assertions are subject to verification. Citing the WP is fine, but as most senior editors will attest, there are exceptions to every rule, and this is one of them. Since two editors agree and only you disagree, reach a consensus before you insert another word. "Thought to be" implies the claim has been verified and the person is oldest unless another older candidate is discovered. Besides, we can ask "who?" "thinks" Kowalski is the oldest in Poland - it is certainly not GRG, the world's leading arbitrator on the subject. Canada Jack (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it's laughable that you think two editors agreeing about something gives you a pass to ignore long-standing consensus elsewhere (see WP:Localconsensus). Second, I don't care what kind of happy horseshit is in other articles (see WP:OTHERCRAP). Finally, I'll repeat for the umpteenth time that I agree that "thought to be" is far from ideal, and I urge editors to come up with something better within existing policies and guidelines. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What sources say that he is Poland's oldest living man? I looked through a few: one says he is the oldest and only surviving participant of the Polish-Bolshevik War, another that as of 2009 he was one of Poland's oldest people, and another that as of 2007 he was the oldest in Lubuskie. Braincricket (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. All of this shit about "Poland's oldest living man" began as original research by the longevity fanboys. We have sources that he's the oldest military veteran in the world; that's all that need be included for now. If sources are found for the former, it can be put back; per WP:BLP it must be removed rather than cite-tagged. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this article says he's the oldest man in Poland. Can a Polish-speaker confirm this? Also, is it a reliable source? Braincricket (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, as Wiki talk:BLP was of no use, I finally got an answer from the Help Desk: Help Desk]. Note that "thought to be" should never be used. Nor should "Claimed to be". But "claimed by xxx to be" is acceptable with a citation to the appropriate source. As in "claimed by xxx to be the world's oldest military veteran"(not that there is an source, yet, making such a claim). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There might be. Take a look at my comment just above. Google translate says "Mr. Joseph is now 112 years and is the oldest man in Poland." Like, I don't speak Polish so I don't know if the translation is accurate and if it's a reliable source anyway ? Braincricket (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the google translation appears to be clear. But it does not mention who determined that he was the oldest/last or how his age has been established. This a major failing of WP:RS, the source can make the statement and it is supposed to be blindly accepted, even when there is nothing presented that could provide any basis for reliability (there are plenty of reports of people aged 120, or even 130+ which WP:RS determines are "reliable"). For all we know this could be another Andrew Rasch case. I suggest:

"According to a Polish newspaper report Kowalski was, at 112, the oldest man in Poland by August 2012".<ref>citation</ref>

This attributes the statement to a source but leaves any judgement about the reliability or accuracy of that source up to the reader. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, is Wieści Podwarszawskie a respectable paper or is it a tabloid? Braincricket (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The literal translation of "Wieści Podwarszawskie" is "tidings suburban" which sounds very much like a local community paper. I can't find any guideline which mentions whether such publications are considered reliable and in what DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it's laughable that you think two editors agreeing about something gives you a pass to ignore long-standing consensus elsewhere. First of all, the subject is longevity. In terms of that subject, owing to a) the large number of claims, and b) the large percentage of claims which are shown to be exaggerated or fraudulent, the use of the term is entirely appropriate as claims are indeed subject to verification. As opposed to, say, writing `Barack Obama claims to have a degree from Harvard`or what have you, which would suggest there is doubt which is what the policy in fact addresses.

Second, I don't care what kind of happy horseshit is in other articles This person`s claim to notability is the fact he is the oldest this and the oldest that. To underline that on this particular subject a high incidence of either unverifiable claims are made, or claims which prove to be exaggerated or fraudulent, we use the word `claim`` frequently.

And in this particular case, not only has the claim not been verified, I understand that relatives who could produce contemporary documentation or allow longevity experts access to this in, I think, Ukraine where he was born, have refused the otherwise routine access to allow this to happen. Which raises red flags. All the more reason to underline this is a CLAIM. I checked in the last week or so, as Joe`s objections seem overstated, and discovered there is a lot of chatter on sites elsewhere on this case: Seems there is a mini-campaign to bypass the normal ways to whereby these sorts of things are verified on the one hand, and on the other hand, excise the doubt that exists in this particular case on the claims being made within the article, even though this is normal practice on longevity articles for the reasons stated earlier. Canada Jack (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

@Canada:WP:Localconsensus, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; read, digest, repeat as necessary. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Derby:Funny you should mention Andy Rasch; he comes to mind as the perfect example of where "claim" would have been appropriate. That is, someone who appears out of nowhere, saying that he's one-hundred-and-some years old and fought in WWI. Kowalski, on the other hand, has been known to the world for years. Following WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP, there is no reason to write that he only "claims" to be 113. I would support your suggestion of: "According to a Polish newspaper...". Also, your obsession with "thought to be" is becoming troubling. You've been here for a long time- my AGF is running out. I said from the get-go that "thought to be" was, in my own words, "far from ideal". I don't expect to need to clarify this again. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Joe, I am aware of the various issues you flagged - however, I should point out that in this particular case, the biography, this page, would not exist without the claim. That is his notability - that he is the lone survivor from the Polish/Soviet war, World War I, or whatever, and that his age, if true, not only makes him the oldest living man, but one of the dozen or so oldest men in history. What is odd here is not that he appeared out of nowhere - his case has been known about for several years, as you say - what is odd about this case is the documentation exists, apparently, but requires the permission of his relatives to access. So, verification should be relatively routine. So the fact that the case has been known for years adds more red flags as his relatives have resisted what should be a routine process - verifying the claim - instead, as I understand it, talking about the government card he has (which isn't a contemporary document) and generally waging a media campaign against "jealous" westerners or what have you, demanding proof he isn't the age he claims, trying to reverse the onus of proof.

For those reasons, the usual policy on the use of "claim" simply don't apply. This page would not exist if not for the claim, a claim which is normally subject to verification, verification which, apparently, has been blocked by relatives. And now relatives can point to THIS page and say, "see, he's the age he claims," as there is nothing here to suggest any such claim is subject to verification, or has not been verified. Canada Jack (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You're obviously just making this up as you go at this point. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, you talk about the policies, as if that is the end of the story, and I have been saying it isn't a "case closed" per the policies as they are guidelines not set rules, and that in the general sense notability which rests on an age claim should underline that this is a claim when not verified. That's what I have been saying all along. What is new is me saying that in this specific case, gerontologists have raised suspicions because the family has blocked access. This isn't news, though perhaps you weren't aware of this. And certainly no one reading the article will have an inkling that there is any controversy here at all. Canada Jack (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

All of this is your own original research. If you have strong sources that mention controversy concerning Kowalski's DOB, then we'll have something to discuss. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ever since I noticed you were so adamant on excising "claimed" from here, I thought it odd - you seem to be an experienced editor, and in terms of inserting "claimed" on a page which would not exist without this claim of being born in 1900, the need to insert a word which expresses the routine caution when such amazing assertions are made - Kowalski would be the oldest living man on the planet, if verified - should make obvious the need to underline that. But you seem bent on pulling every policy you can - even when obviously misapplied - to make sure that routine disclaimer is not here. So, I have to wonder: What is really going on here, Joe? What is your specific interest in this? Come on, you can tell us... we won't tell anyone else... Canada Jack (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust Survivor

STILL ALIVE?

Can someone direct me to the source that says he is a holocaust survivor? Daniel Stavons (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I originally thought you were asking this because the article says he was held in a concentration camp (which doesn't necessarily mean "Holocaust survivor"), but now I see that someone added the category, so the question bears repeating. Anyone? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

He was prisoner of war held in stalag, not in extermination camp. Source in Polish: Najstarszy Polak świata. --Hektor Absurdus (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure he is still alive? When I saw pictures of him at age 112 he looked somewhat frail. In Feb of 2013 he honestly looked like he was bedridden and on his death bed. When was it last reported he was living?

Death, and Talk Page Section closings

His death was updated here on Wikipedia 2 days late, but nevertheless he died December 7. So, I will now close all the Talk Page Sections specifically surrounding WP:BLP or otherwise his being alive. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not how it works at all. WP:BLP doesn't cease to apply the second someone's heart stops beating. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Joe, your obsession with removing the routine notes that this is an unverified claim, is, to say the least, interesting. Especially given that Kowalski's relatives have apparently blocked the ability of researchers to verify his rather astonishing claim - he would have had one of the 10-longest male lifespans in history, if verified. Joe, do you have any vested interest in this outside your normal role as editor at wikipedia? Are you in any way connected to Kowalski's relatives, or are you related to this man? Canada Jack (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

What is more interesting is that in recent months, GRG has received documentation for other Polish super-c's, seven to mid-November, one of whom was still alive. Documentation has been received, though not yet are fully validated. Most were born in Russia, but one was born in Ukraine. It is very odd that Kowalski's relatives are still apparently not cooperating with researchers now that Waclaw Jan Kroczek and GRG are actively investigating these claims in Poland. Canada Jack (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"10 longest male lifespans in history" is utter nonsense. That statement refers only to those "verified" by GRG, something that has no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia (or reality, for that matter). Joefromrandb (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... we are getting closer, Joe! Yes, you are correct, "reality" as per GRG. That "reality" is simply what can be verified with a high degree of certainty, given the widespread fraud and exaggerated claims on this subject, so it is important, your personal opinion on this notwithstanding. But the "reality" is that there are 100s, if not 1000s of unverified claims which exceed Kowalski's, which makes HIS claim rather irrelevant in terms of his age. However, if he is claiming to be a military veteran of some war, that is something different. The fact that the family is blocking what would be routine access to documents to verify he is who he claims to be - the last surviving veteran of a particular war - suggests the possibility that he may have been doing something thousands of "veterans" have done for several hundred years - claim benefits for something he had no part in. And if it was to be revealed that he in fact took the place of a brother or inflated his age or otherwise in terms of receiving benefits, one can understand why his relatives would be loath to allow access to documents other than the post facto ones issued by the Polish government.

I will ask you again - what connection, if any, do you have with this man? Canada Jack (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There he goes again. Joe has reverted changes which show the doubt about this case while saying "Robert's" changes are not welcome here. No doubt referring to Robert Young, one of the world-wide authorities on claims of extreme age. But Joe knows better, apparently. And, apparently, Joe now owns this page. Time to come clean, Joe, what, if any, connection to you have to the Kowalski family and why are you censoring the fact that Kowalski's claim is subject to doubt? More than doubt, actually. The family has blocked access to records which would confirm the claim- if true. Now why would they do that? Canada Jack (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Note

I'm at the point of WP:DENY with Canada Jack, but I will post this here for any good-faith editors who may be watching. Obviously, the community owns this article, and it was the community that decided that Ryoung122 is not welcome to edit here. One of the reasons that Robert was thrown the hell off of this website was his ridiculous attempt to insist that all subjects of longevity-related articles must be "verified" by his cronies and him, and without such "verification" all such cases are merely "claims". On his talk page, Robert has vowed to continue to edit Wikipedia by proxy by simply updating his sites. We don't write in Barack Obama's article that he "claims" to have been born in Hawaii because a few nutcases haven't seen the "proof" they have demanded. Similarly, we aren't going contradict what reliable sources have to say about Kowalski's age simply because the GRG haven't given it their rubber stamp. A perusal of the archives shows that Kowalski first appeared on Wikipedia sometime around 2007, at the since-redirected article "List of surviving veterans of World War I". At the time, Kowalski was an unremarkable 107 years old, and there were 50 or so bona fide World War I veterans still living. There was debate about whether Kowalski -not actually a veteran of the Great War- belonged on the page, but, to my knowledge, there was no debate about his age. Furthermore, there has never been any debate that he is a veteran of the first Polish-Soviet War. It was only recently -when Kowalski became the oldest man living- that the GRG fanboys began this "only a claim" nonsense. Regardless of the fact that they may not like it, we have reliable sources that confirm Kowalski's age. I'll repeat what I said earlier (and this is meant as a genuine invitation, rather than a defiant challenge): if anyone has strong sources that allege that there is controversy concerning Kowalski's age, then please present them. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe. Your actions showed an obvious focus on this claim and on Robert's involvement, sorry for nagging you about this.

But this is not simply a case of the gerontology nerds wanting to do it their way - it is a case of what would be a verifiable claim being blocked by a family, and their appeal to the "verifications" from government sources, which are most likely a repeat of what Kowalski or his relatives supplied many years ago as his birth date. This raises a lot of red flags as it is hard to imagine why a family would who certainly enjoyed having him recognized as the oldest man within Poland would not also want this man recognized as the oldest man in the world and as the last man alive born in the 19th century. What they cited as "proof" isn't "proof" at all. Men enlisting routinely lied about their age, often to appear too old to enlist or, as what seems to be the case here, added several years to their age to appear old enough to enlist in the war effort.

Proof? Since the family has blocked attempts to see the original birth records, we are in a position of attempting to assess whether it is likely Kowalski was in fact born 2 February 1900. And, recent research shows that he likely was not. Here is the evidence against Kowalski's claim by GRG man in Poland Wacław Jan Kroczek:

I have to report this, that there occurred a big turn in research for Mr. Jozef Kowalski.

Mr. Kowalski is probably the oldest man in Poland.

For the last few months I worked tirelessly to reach him. Eventually I managed to look inside the very metrical books from the parish Wicyn, which are stored in Warsaw.

However, with full awareness of my words I report that Mr. Jozef Kowalski' s claimed birthdate of 2 February 1900 IS NOT TRUE!

And I finally have the proof.

I searched for the metric books from the parish Dunajów. I learned that Wicyn was an independent parish since 1888; however, the records of people from Wicyn were included in Dunajów books until 1900.

I was unsuccessful in finding Mr. Kowalski' s name in births as for 1900, 1899, 1898, 1897, 1896...

Historical Archives of Ukraine also sent me an information on 10 September 2013, that they haven't found Jozef Kowalski in 1900.

But the proof itself is the fact that I managed to find 2 brothers and 4 sisters of Mr. Kowalski. All of them were born in years 1893-1900, in Wicyn, from the same father: Wawrzyniec (Laurentius) Kowalski and mother, whose name was Rozalia:

Their names are:

1. Franciszek (Franciscus) Kowalski.... born 23 January 1893

2. Antonina Kowalska.... ......... ......born 4 February 1894

3. Maria Kowalska.... ......... ......... born 19 September 1895

4. Anna Kowalska.... ......... ......... .born 14 April 1898

6. Helena Kowalska.... ......... ........born 1 June 1900

The date of birth of the youngest daughter, Helena Kowalska, makes it impossible for another child to be born on 2 February 1900.

So it leaves me no doubts that Mr. Jozef Kowalski' s claimed birthdate is fake.

The family turned me down three times already. I think that they know or at least suspect that he is younger, that is why they do not wish to cooperate. Or simply they do not have any documents apart from ID card, which is not a proof in this case.

At those times it was very common for people and especially for peasant farmers to have many childern. Each year a new child was born.

E.g. my greatgrandmother had 9 siblings.

I include you the six birth records for each of the children of Mr. Wawrzyniec (Laurinius) Kowalski.

These acts are written in Latin, and are much easier in form than those written in Russian. It is because the village of Wicyn was located in the old Tarnopolskie Voivodeship, which was part of Gallicia (Austria-Hungary) , which lied in the south of the old Kingdom of Poland under Russian occupancy. In Galicia, the Polish people had the biggest authonomy. Because of the old traditions, the metrical books from this region are all written in Latin, which makes them much easier to understand as well.

To find Mr. Jozef Kowalski' s birth record, I must look for metric books from parish and village Wicyn of younger years. Unfortunatelly I was told by the archivist that the Dunajów metrical books possess Wicyn no longer. Since the year 1901, Wicyn had its own metrical books. Those books are not in Warsaw archives. I learned, that the last father from the Wicyn parish took the books with him in 1945 to Poland. Then he gave them to the people from his parish for safe keeping. Presumably, they are still in private hands. It does not makes it easy, either.

The metrical books of such value should be in the archives for everybody' s sake, for everyone who would do some genealogical research. However, there is a little chance. I lately contacted with an old citizen of Wicyn. He is passionate for his home village, he made an internet website on Wicyn's topic and wrote a book. He engaged himself in this task very much. I learned from him, that he has had a contact. A retired medicine doctor from Szczecin, who is said to possess some books of Wicyn!

I won't leave the trace. Jozef Kowalski, though younger, still can turn out to be a supercentenarian.

The day might not have changed though, so IF Jozef Kowalski was born on 2 February 1902 then he is WOM.

And if he was born on 2 February 1903 he is two days older than Dr. Alexander Imich, currently second oldest verified male.

The date 1901 is unlikely.

1900 is out.

I'm not so happy with my discovery, that Mr. Kowalski is beyond doubt younger. I hoped he really was 113 years old. But I believe, that what is most important here is the truth. Mr. Kowalski is sure to be one, two or just a few years younger than he claimed. But in 1920, he must have been old enough to take part in Polish-Russian War. He may be 16 or 17 on the photo taken in 1920.

It is the most difficult of all the cases I have faced so far.

The research continiues.. .

Wacław Jan Kroczek

GRG Corresponent for Poland

Canada Jack (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Would he have been the last man from the 19th century?

If his birthdate is correct and since 1900 is technically the last year of that century. Jiroeman Kimura, born 1897, is said to be the very last. Along with James Sisnett who was born in 1900.

Still, on the "living supercentenarians" page there are also three or four unverified or pending cases of living men who claim to have born in 1900 but they likely won't be verified.

Zz pot (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No, for one thing there are already plenty of other claims to have been born in the 19th century listed at Longevity claims and no doubt there will be more in the next 10 years. Secondly he won't get verified so it's a moot point anyway. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up. According to the Polish correspondent for the GRG on the 110 club, Jozef Kowalski had a sister born in June 1900. So he can't have been born before 1901. So, no. He wasn't born in the 19th century. He is simply one of many men who claim to be born in 1900 or earlier. Check out Longevity Claims for more information. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually he was born February 2, 1901 and not February 2, 1900.