Talk:Ruby Muhammad

Not Elijah Muhammad's Widow

Well, I guess it's about time somebody put this myth to rest. Ruby Muhammad was never married to Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad. Instead, he was married to one Clara Evans. Unless someone can provide some proof otherwise, there is no reason to believe that she ever was. I believe it was in fact this site (and the existence of those many wikipedia clone sites) that may have started this untruth. In researching some online newspaper articles, it seems that Ruby was married to two men, one for 50 years, and it seems that neither would have been Elijah Muhammad, since his name, while used several times in this article never alludes to a marriage between the two of them.[1]

While I don't believe this diminishes her life and accomplishments, it does in some sense reduce her notability. Sorry folks. Katagelophobia 2 Apr 2006

Ostensibly

os·ten·si·ble /ɒˈstɛnsəbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[o-sten-suh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. outwardly appearing as such; professed; pretended: an ostensible cheerfulness concealing sadness.

os·ten·si·ble (ŏ-stěn'sə-bəl) Pronunciation Key adj. Represented or appearing as such; ostensive: His ostensible purpose was charity, but his real goal was popularity.

It means 'pretended to be, though not really'.Ryoung122 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

New info found on rootsweb

As of 11/8/2007, I have recently found more proof that Ms. Muhammad may be close to 100 or just 101. I will not put this up until I get permission.

ID: I521510149 Name: Ruby GRIER Given Name: Ruby Surname: Grier Sex: F Birth: 03/20/1906 in Sandersville, Ga

Father: Lee GRIER b: in Kingston,Jamaica Mother: Rosa HOWARD

Marriage 1 Colman TRAVIS

Living Children 1 Colman Travis

Marriage 2 John PITTMAN

Here's a link: http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:2456269&id=I521510149 Plyjacks 05:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review the concept of Wikipedia:No original research. Until this material is published in third party, independent reliable sources, we cannot accept original research on any article, and especially none in those articles that fall under the aegis of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people. Cheers, CP 03:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But why on earth is rootsweb not considered a 'reliable' source (and it IS a third-party source): tell me? Extremely sexy 12:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bart, please please do read WP:RS and WP:V. Rootsweb carries a note on every page saying "RootsWeb.com, Inc. is NOT responsible for the content of the GEDCOMs uploaded through the WorldConnect Program" (in other words, anyone can upload GEDCOM data to rootsweb).

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but Rootsweb makes no attempt to verify the information it publishes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This site says she is 101, soon to be 102 in a few weeks. :) http://www.deadoraliveinfo.com/dead.nsf/mnames/Muhammad+Ruby YourPTR! (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that every other reliable site "Noted Nongenerians and Centerians" http://www.genarians.com/1906-1907.html; "Dead or Alive" http://www.deadoraliveinfo.com/dead.nsf/mnames-nf/Muhammad+Ruby lists Ruby Muhammad as being born in either 1907 or 1906. No evidence suggests a birthdate of 1897. Wikpedia is the only exception here. TFBCT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.71.144 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a better explanation why Wikpedia is deviating from most other reliable sources on this case other than what has already been posted on this discussion page? If so, please enlighten me. Thank you. TFBCT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.71.144 (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably as these sites are not reliable sources. See comments by BrownHairedGirl above. Shot info (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only are they not reliable, but at least one, if not both, of them are getting their information from Wikipedia, which is precisely why it's so dangerous to start spreading original research on Wikipedia. Cheers, CP 01:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain, if they are getting their information from Wikpedia why do they both differ from Wikpedia in listing Muhammad's dob as either 1906, or 1907; not 1897 as Wikpedia does. Both sites I mentioned above "are" known for their accuracy. And they do probably check Wikpedia often, yet they still choose to deviate on this case. What happend to the clear edits made by RYoung that placed her age a decade earlier, or were they considered "original research"? At some point doesn't getting it right take any precedence here?. TFBCT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.71.144 (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiablility. This is the problem that Ryoung ran into here at Wikiland is that he would perform original research with his edits. Now at the moment, Wikipedia has a source. Until it gets a better source, from "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" then we are stuck with what we have. If you would like, feel free to publish your research in a reliable source, and then we can use that reference here. Policy for your review is WP:RS and WP:V. WP:NOT would help as well. Shot info (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that Ruby Muhammad is a living person, and posting information that attacks her supercentenarian claim without reliable sources by making her 9 or 10 years younger is a gross violation of WP:BLP. The reason that those two sites changed it (or, at least one of them for sure, I'm speculating on the second) is because the 1906/7 birthday was on Wikipedia for quite a long time before the "error" was corrected. Cheers, CP 16:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never done this before, so I don't know if I'm doing it correctly. If not, please let me know. I'm the webmaster of "Noted Nonagenarians and Centenarians" and today I received an e-mail from someone basically telling (as opposed to requesting) me to move Ruby Muhammad's listing on my site from 1907 to 1897. I sarcastically told him that while I usually love being told what to do, I thought I would pass and leave Muhammad where she was. The reason I'm writing now is to say that while I'm flattered the NN&C site is considered reliable (see above), I must admit I have absolutely no clue as to her real birth year and have decided to just go with 1907 based on Robert Young's research and the census information listed previously. I have in no way done any independent research. Because of this uncertainty, I have added the disclaimer "several sources claim 1897" beside Muhammad's listing. If any definitive evidence comes to light, I'm more than willing to more her back to 1897. The real issue, at least for me, is it really doesn't matter exactly how old she is. Her value to the Nation of Islam is obviously not based on her age, but rather on the qualities she possesses as a human being. So the age matter is rather pointless, I think (i.e., she's valuable if she's 110, but not valuable if she's only 100). The bottom line to me as the keeper of the NN&C pages is that Ruby Muhammad is over 90, which she obviously is. User:Walter Breitzke 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So is she 100, or is she 110?

The article currently claims that she is 110. There's been a major dispute here over this. Thoughts? What's the current consensus?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Until there's a reliable source that puts her at 100, she stays at 110. Cheers, CP 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with that, because to say anything otherwise would be original research, such as was in the article before.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see response above. Thanks. TFBCT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.71.144 (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Potential WP:RFC

Before I retire, I want the mess on this page settled for good. If her birthdate is changed again without respect to WP:BLP and WP:OR, a request for comment will be launched for this article. So please, if you have a reliable, third-party source for her age, then provide it. If not, do not change it. Cheers, CP 05:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Age Dispute

Currently, there is a low key edit war going on on this page, regarding the date of birth of Ruby Muhammad, whether it should be listed as 1897, 1906 or 1907, which qualifications (if any) are needed for the year of birth, and whether policies of WP:OR and WP:BLP are being violated. I will post my opinion on the situation and notify all involved users below this summary.

Requestor's Statement

Here is a summary of what I see to be the problem and what the options/potential issues are.

Ruby Muhammad has, since c. 1986, asserted that her birthdate is March 20, 1897. All reliable sources on the issue have, and continue to, list her either as having an age reflective of 1897. Within the last year, however, original research by Robert Young of the Gerontology Research Group and several of his associates have discovered that she may have been born in 1906 or 1907 (as far as I understand it, there isn't even agreement on which of these two is more likely). While the evidence is convincing, several of his associates, most notably User:Bart Versieck, have taken it upon themselves first to outwardly change her year of birth to 1906 or 1907, or to add qualifiers such as question marks, "claimed birthdate" or placing her in Category:Longevity claims as opposed to Category:American supercentenarians (Leila Denmark, a case as equally unvalidated as Muhammad's, has been unequivocally placed in the "American supercentenarians" category, so I feel that putting one in one category and the other in another places a subjective value judgment on each of the claims).

As can be seen in the talk page discussion above, attempts were made by various users to show how each of the sources used to justify these changes were either a) unreliable or b) original research. In one case, one of the "sources" entered the discussion and said that he got his information from Robert Young and Wikipedia... so in this case, it's not just a theoretical issue, it's a potentially serious violation of WP:BLP. The changing of her birthdate and questioning of her claim without proper attribution is the equivalent of calling her a liar, stating that she is lying about her stated birthdate and is actually younger. Now if she is, and this information is published in a third party, independent, reliable source (I'm not talking about the New England Journal of Medicine here, a simple local news report would do), then it's her own fault for being a liar. But Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research and certainly not a forum for scientific accusation. With other sites copying from Wikipedia, as many are wont to do, this is a potentially serious WP:BLP problem. Just because it's unlikely that Ruby Muhammad is going to come sue Wikipedia, doesn't mean that we can overlook WP:BLP.

Anyhow, I thought that the arguments made by myself and others involved were persuasive enough to put an end to the issue. I retired from Wikipedia for unrelated issues almost immediately after. About a week later, User:Bart Versieck took it upon himself to ignore the established consensus in my absence. When approached about it on his talk page, he responded merely with edit summaries that contain personal attacks and some other stuff basically telling me to leave (assuming he's referring to me, I suppose he may not be in all fairness). What I seek now is a very solidly determined consensus that can be used to produce a stable version of the article until Muhammad's age is questioned in a third-party, independent and reliable source.

I cannot stress enough that I really don't care if she was born in 1897, 1906, 1907 or any other year. Quite frankly, I think that she is more likely younger than she claims, for many reasons. But there's nothing that's neither subjective nor printed in a third-party, independent source that verifies this, so anything that comes up for this is either original research, a violation of WP:BLP or both. If a third party, independent source were reporting these claims, then it wouldn't be much of an issue. In this case, however, it is. If they are true, then they should be published in a third-party source before they are reproduced on Wikipedia. Cheers, CP 07:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Supporting statement by User:BrownHairedGirl

I have been a party to these discussions, and I agree with Canadian Paul. The situation here is quite simple:

1. All the references produced to information published in reliable sources cites Muhammad's d.o.b as 1897
2. No references have been produced in reliable sources to information published in reliable sources to establish a different d.o.b. or even to query the 1897 date.
3. Two references have been offered for the claim that Muhammed's d.o.b. may not be 1897: [2] and [3], both ow which are links to email messages circulated on the Worlds Oldest People mailing list (aka "WOP")m which is owned by Robert Young.

The mailing list posts are not a reliable source:

• That mailing list is not even a publication: subscription to the list and access to its archives are both by signup only. Last time I attempted to subscribe, I received an automated response that moderator approval was required "to prevent spying". Hiding material to prevent "spying" is the precise opposite of publication.
• A private mailing list run by one individual dies not meet the characteristics of WP:V#Reliable_sources; it is a form of self-publication (see WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29).

All of these points have been repeatedly discussed with User:Bart Versieck, on his talkpage, on this talkpage, and elsewhere, but Bart either does not understand or does not accept WP:V: see for example this discussion on his talkpage. Similar discussion always go round in the same circle, and end back where they started with Bart simply saying something to the effect of "but WOP is a reliable source", ignoring all other assessments of how WOP stands up to the tests in WP:V#Reliable_sources.

I removed the original research in a series of edits on 27 November ([4], [5], [6], cumulative diff here) and — again in December.

At this point, I see no evidence at all in reliable sources to support the 1906/1907 date of birth. User:Bart Versieck's repeated use of original research unreliable sources (in breach of the core policies WP:V and WP:NOR and of WP:BLP) seem to me to be grounds for an RFC/U. This has gone on for far too long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• First RfC response: Details about persons are debated all the time. In my years of being at Wikipedia, I've noticed a certain trend in handling such situations: Present the verifiable information as fact, and then discuss the debate in a separate section. In this case, in the lead sentence and/or infobox, her birth year would be listed as 1897. However, one could add a section called "Age disputed" or something similar, and then add any THIRD PARTY RELIABLE SOURCES that may or may not exist to show that the matter is controversial. Regardless, the reinsertion of original research (paricularly on a living person) is entirely out of line. As an admin, I feel like there is sufficient evidence here to issue a warning to the offending party.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse both BrownHairedGirl and CPs statements. Simply put, if the proponents of these websites wish to be regarded by Wikipedia as reliable sources they must met Wikipedia's requirements. At the moment they don't and they have been correctly reverted. The onus is on the proponents of the information on the websites to have their information published in verifiable, reliable sources, which they seem rather reluctant to do. Editors with a singular point of view who are regarded as editing disruptively should be counselled and when that fails - dealt with appropriately. Shot info (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The editor concerned has been appropriately counselled, at great length, but to no apparent effect, What do we do next? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

    Deal with them appropriately :-) Seriously though, probably better wait for more RFCs to come in but it looks like just a case of revert, revert, revert, revert till the SPA sees the error of his ways. Shot info (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment from NealIRC

I re-joined Robert Young's WOP group (after having our cool down period and after being removed for posting a poem about Robert on BrownHairedGirl's talk) yesterday. And now I can view the WOP messages which are restricted to outside members. And in there, Robert found an archived newspaper that said Ruby Muhammad was previously Ruby Macie Grayer (source: http://www.sacobserver.com/community/071006/celebrating_centenarians.shtml, then press Ctrl F, then type in Grayer). And census from RootsWeb shows her being born in 1906 and 1907 (depending on the 1910 and 1920 census). The census shows her parents name. Robert is waiting for the family of Ruby on her parents name (really for their side of the story). So she might have a maiden name, which she was born with, that we can find in the census. So basically - information is still pending.

So this might be original research - but I don't think it is if we are finished verifying with the official government census, and can accurately confirm it is her. And then I would like this information to be a footnote - like we did with Japan and Roman supercentenarian births in an adjustment to the Gregorian calendars.

And as with this Bart Versieck vs. Wikipedia policy thing, well heck, if he did the 3-revert rule, what's there to argue? If he's at 2nd strike, wait for the 3rd. Heh. I should be back with additional information. Neal (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Neal, that's a huge combination of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Even if all the points you make are verified, it is not useable on wikipedia unless and until it is published in a reliable source — WP:SYN is quite explicit about this sort of thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel the above follows WP:OR because the information is already there. The scenario is someone 'discovering' the information. And I don't feel the person discovering it deserves credit of course (like people may like to say this case was debunked by Robert Young). Kind of like a chemical reference book listing data. WP:Syn - certainly. But you put your argument seemingly as if I wanted it as a reference. I stated in the above that I would like this information added as a footnote. So I now bolded my sentence saying that. Neal (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Neal, you refer to "verifying with the official government census, and can accurately confirm it is her". That's original research, from primary sources. Wikipedia uses secondary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can it be whether it is about reliable sources or not? Neal (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment 2:

I note that Ruby Muhammad is currently in the unverified living supercentenarians table in the list of living supercentenarians article. This means she should be put in the category: longevity claims and such. Neal (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Neal. Plyjacks (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too, as you most probably know. Extremely sexy (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet none of you were willing to do this for Leila Denmark before she was validated. Cheers, CP 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Canadian Paul. I wasn't involved with the Leila Denmark case, but for cases like her and Ruby Muhammad, even though Bart Versieck and Plyjacks presumably know *the truth* - that's still no reason for them to violate Wikipedia policy (or at least, they won't get my sympathy for breaking it). Neal (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Work done outside "Wikipedia" is not 'original research', and, moreover, even if no evidence existed that called Ruby Muhammad's age into question, there still is no documentation for her, so she should be a 'longevity claim', pure and simple, plus further, there is documentation for Dr. Denmark, so the charge of 'subjective bias' is baseless. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing her to longevity claim, if we apply the standard to EVERYONE who turns 110 until they are verified by an international body. I think this should be made more clear in Category:Longevity claims before anything is changed though. Cheers, CP 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow: an agreement. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Carcharoth

As far as I can see, the source currently in the article is a local newspaper report that sources the age claim to Ruby Muhammad herself. "Raised by an aunt who was a former slave and signed her name with an "X," Mother Ruby says she was born Ruby Macie Grayer on March 20, 1897. There was no birth certificate, but she said community records in her hometown of Sandersville, Ga., indicate that her father died at 107 and her great-grandfather died at 110." [7]. In my opinion, in the absence of a birth certificate or any other documented evidence independently verified by others (and the local newspaper doesn't seem to have done any independent verification), the person in question can not be considered a reliable source for their own age. My view is that there is thus no reliable source that independently verifies her age, and unless someone can provide one, then we can't say how old she is. We can say that she claims to have been born "Ruby Macie Grayer on March 20, 1897", and also add that she said that "her father died at 107 and her great-grandfather died at 110", but that is subtlely but crucially different from saying that she was born in 1897. Regarding the outside research done by Robert Young, that only becomes original research if it is placed directly into Wikipedia by him or others before it is published by a reliable source. We can, though, still say that others claim different things about Ruby Muhammad's age, if we consider the reliability of Robert Young (or any researcher on the topic) to be similar to the reliability of Ruby Muhammad. In other words, Ruby Muhammad's claim got published in a local newspaper (I'm going by what the article says - if there are other sources publishing this, the article should say that as well), so if Robert Young's claims get published by a similarly reliable source, then we can put the claim in the article. But neither Ruby Muhammad nor Robert Young, should be directly editing their research or claims into Wikipedia without publishing them first. Of course, if a truly independent and unassailable source publishes definitive evidence of age, then the whole problem goes away, but until then my view is either: (a) no age at all; or (b) present the age as a claim, not a verified age, if there is a source publishing the claim. At the moment (I think) there is a source publishing Ruby Muhammad's claim, but not one publishing Robert Young's claim. Hence change the article to say that the age is a claim by Ruby Muhammad, and await further developments. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Wikipedia needs an article on age validation. Do we have anything close yet? Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In the mean time, Robert was thinking about letting a or the newspaper company know about her 1906/1907 year of birth. Of course, he thinks of that with caution. Since we don't know what affects or annoyance this could cause the affiliated communities. But I would certainly be for it - I'd risk having the Nation of Islam angry at us. Cause more drama! Neal (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

I have to think about this more, but I'm a little sketchy on the whole idea of "without substantial proof, claimed ages should be stated as claimed ages" (obviously grossly oversimplifying your arguement). Take Rose Friedman for example: we've accepted her claim at face value. A first step would be to add "claimed" to any one who self-reports their age. This would include not just people without birth records (which would be a whole hell of a lot) but also any more "minor" celebrities such as professors whose source of birth is not reported and thoroughly checked by third party sources. After all, many third party sources take Muhammad's age for granted. Again, this would be all moot if Young's claims were published in an third-party source. I find it interesting that's he's worried about the effect it would have on "affiliated communities" – it's almost as if WP:BLP applies not only to Wikipedia... Cheers, CP 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This would only apply where ages are controversial, notable, or part of a person's claim to fame, as is the case here. Normal ages should still be sourced when disputed, but (for historical people) a history book is good enough for that. Still-living people require more care, both ways. Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to say - it seems that the counter-claim was not made by Robert Young, but by another supercentenarian researcher. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone get a county birth record?

This is getting downright pathetic. We have had about three different ages on this woman for a year now. Why don't we just find out what county the gal was born in and call their county clerk to get a record of birth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron.mccarthy67 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I can only agree with your proposal then. Extremely sexy (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is assuming that the county she was born in had birth registration when she was born. Neal (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Because that's original research. This whole RFC isn't a vendetta against Robert Young. We don't accept original research, especially not on living people, no matter who does the research. Cheers, CP 06:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's rather strange "Wikipedia" is against proof, since this is something which can be proven, hence. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you actually read WP:OR and WP:BLP (or at least paid attention when it was explained to you) it would make more sense. And let's not forget that nothing can ever be "proved" only "reasonably proved". Absolute proof does not exist. Cheers, CP 00:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So if the "SSDI" states that the death of a person has been verified by a family member, you actually don't trust this completely? Extremely sexy (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bart, Canadian Paul is right: go read WP:OR and WP:BLP, and then read WP:SYN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it, girl. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So if I read the above section right, people are saying that taking a person's claim that they are "x years old", and putting that in Wikipedia as a statement that they are x years old, then that would be original research and synthesis? I don't see how a local newspaper reporting that someone claims to be x years old can be considered a reliable source for the age. It is a reliable source for the age claim, but that is something different. Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Now this has really got even more interesting. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you lose the cryptic side-commentary, please, and try and add more productive and substantive comments instead? Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I just want to liven this page up. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I agree that looking up county birth records (or census information) for living people is original research, and a violation of WP:BLP while someone is alive. But doing this for long-dead people is actually done on quite a lot of Wikipedia articles with very little fuss made about it. Birth records may be primary sources, but primary sources are not actually forbidden on Wikipedia (it is a common misconception that only secondary and tertiary sources are allowed). The key is usually whether you are using the reference as a fact-checking reference, or for an opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple problems here. Unless the record cert is nailed to the persons' head, further research is needed to verify whether it is the right cert, and that's where WP:SYN comes in. However, the fundamental problem here is that RM is notable in large part because of her age, and the claim of age has been widely reported as fact without any public counter-claim. Questioning the reported age on wikipedia is therefore original research, and it seems that Wikipedia may be being used as a stalking horse for an issue which some interested parties do not themselves want to raise directly through other paths to publication.

I object quite strongly to this: it's completely wrong for interested parties to try to use wikipedia as a device for publishing original research which they choose not to publish directly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that any counter-claims should not go in the article until they are reliably published. But ignore for a moment the counter-claims. If there were no counter-claims, would it be appropriate to take someone's unsubstantiated claim about themselves (whether it be age or anything else) and present it in Wikipedia as fact? You say it has been "widely reported as fact" - however, in the article I see only one reference to a local newspaper where the age claim seems to be based on an interview with the person concerned. What other sources have independently (ie. not based on that original interview or other interviews) reported the age? I see no indication that anyone has carried out independent verification of the age claim. Ironically, that is one of the things that some researchers (even those that have not published) do better than newspapers. I stand by my opinion that the article should be changed to state that the age is claimed by the subject concerned and has not been independently verified, and that any counter-claims should not be in the article unless published in a reliable source. In practice, in the article, there are numerous ways to actually tread this fine line between saying she is a certain age, and saying that she claims to be a certain age. WOuld you like me to demonstrate? Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is dangerous territory. Apart from the fact that I see three refs in the article to newspapers reporting her age, we have a basic choice of either taking what the published sources say, or else query the age on the basis of lack of verification. If we go down that route, where does it lead us? Do we apply the same thing to all biographical articles, and if not, why not? There are plenty of cases of notable people discovered to have lied about their age (e.g. Teresa Gorman), so this isn't an issue confined to those claiming to be over 110, and what evidence do we have that dates of birth have been verified for most wikipedia biogs? For the overwhelming majority, there is no evidence at all, and the reported ages are ultimately based on self-reporting, usually filtered through numerous re-uses of the same self-report. Sure, a biographer writing a book will usually sniff out any fraud quite quickly, and likewise with people who gain a very high profile (they attract a lot of scrutiny), but most of the people whose lives are covered in wikipedia come nowhere near that level of scrutiny.

Consider the current Government of Ireland. There's an article on each of the 16 cabinet ministers, and I think that each of them includes a date of birth. Can you show me any evidence that any of the cited sources involve any verification of the d.o.b? I doubt you can, so are we to cite their ages as "claimed"?

I'm well aware that there is a history of fraud in cases of extreme longevity, but the same has applied in other cases, and we don't start out by presuming that a d.o, is unreliable unless independently verified. Robert Young and his pals have established a nice little niche for themselves in checking these claims, and good luck to them ... and of course wikipedia should note their findings too, if published in a reliable source. But the idea that WP can't report an age as fact without Young's approval seems quite odd. Additionally, we don't actually know that her age has not been independently verified: all we know is that the sources so far do not mention the presence or absence of independent verification.

I'm not quite sure what you have in mind by way of a rewrite, though I can see that it is possible to put some distance between this article and the claims (e.g. "the newspaper reports" rather than "RH is", without saying "RH claims"). Anyway, why don't you make the changes and then self-revert pending discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the other refs. I do think you overstate the "danger" here. If this is dangerous, it is equally dangerous to leave things the way they are. "Do we apply the same thing to all biographical articles, and if not, why not?" - No, only require more rigorous sourcing, or more precise "newspaper says" wording, when the age is part of the notability of the subject. "For the overwhelming majority [of Wikipedia articles], there is no evidence at all, and the reported ages are ultimately based on self-reporting..." - but to varying levels of reliability, and with varying amounts of historical work done on this. "we have a basic choice of either taking what the published sources say, or else query the age on the basis of lack of verification" - there is a third option - to report what the sources actually say (that she says she is this age, not that she is this age). "the idea that WP can't report an age as fact without Young's approval seems quite odd" - this is a red herring. Anyone can query a fact on Wikipedia and raise doubt about it. Please don't make this about Robert Young - I've already said that claims by him or others need to be published first. Changes - "the newspaper reports" type of thing is exactly what I had in mind. I will try and carry out the changes soon, and then revert and leave a note here so the change can be reviewed. Carcharoth (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the original argument, this argument is actually meaningless. The question is can a birth certificate be a reliable source for a centenarian that has a different "claimed" age. If this person had a birth certificate, there would be no "interview" where we ask this person what she thinks her age is. But since there isn't 1, then this allows her to lie about her age.

Anyways, I lied about something. I evidently thought she was born in some Muslim country in response to my previous comment. That is, Robert Young and friends couldn't have debunked her by checking her with the U.S. census if she was from another country. So quite frankly, if she *did* have a birth certificate, she/her family would hide it from the media to avoid a lie. But in any case, if a person *did* *have* a public birth certificate, lying would become out of the question. And all the sources that say the person's age would be parallel with what the birth certificate says.

So there is no case where a person born in a non-birth certificate country can validate their age. If they do have a birth certificate, their 2nd choice is to lie about their age and not withhold their birth certificate. So my point stands, discussung about a "hypothetical" scenario where it won't ever happen is pretty meaningless.

We have this synthesis problem. I suppose if we had 1 source that says Ruby Muhammad = claimed born 1897, and a 2nd source that says Ruby Muhammad = Ruby Macie Grayer, and a 3rd source that says Ruby Macie Grayer = born 1906/1907, then we have a sysnthesis problem of 3. Anyways, we have a 2-synthesis problem. We have a souce that says Ruby Muhammad = claim born 1897 *and* Ruby Muhammad = Ruby Macie Grayer. Then the 2nd source is the official government census for Ruby Macie Grayer, born coincidentally in the same town and country as the claimed Ruby Muhammad.

Anyways, whether or not this 1897 case is a "claim" or not, I put it in the same scenario of whether a newspaper reports a person as being born in 1897, without mentioning their source, or, they interview where the person says they were born in 1897. In that case, how do we know the newspaper is right? Suppose, however, that this person was born in a Muslim-country, where there is no such thing as birth certificates and government census records (for the 1800s), so, no 1 born in those years could validate their age, so, no 1 on Wikipedia's biography article should have a non-disputed age. In that case, if Wikipedia says there is no dispute between sources of when such a person was born, then we know something is wrong. For The Netherlands, for example, official birth registration began in 1729. So if someone from The Netherlands claims to be born before 1729, should Wikipedia ever say that the source is not just reliable, but right? Why... more synthesis. The logical thing to do (per Bart Versieck and Plyjacks), is not fight policy, but change it. Or add to it. But not demand it be changed. Neal (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

Filipe Prista Lucas found proof of her being born in 1907 and I plyjacks have have more proof saying she was born in 1906. Plyjacks (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And the reference in a reliable source is? Or is this more original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

An example of synthesis, by NealIRC.

An example of synthesis

What we know and what we don't know.

Part 1: Timeline of Ruby Muhammad on Ryoung122's World's Oldest People Group.

History.

Been doing some snooping on his group.

This part is not relevant, skip to part 2 if you want to see the conclusion.

1.The 1st mention of Ruby Muhammad to Robert Young's WOP group was on May 1, 2005, when some random person goes:

"Greetings! I would like to suggest Ms Ruby Muhammad widow of Elijah Muhammad founder of the Nation of Islam I think she also just turned 108 years old thanks!!!"

That same day, user Bart Versieck replies:

"But has this been confirmed (she allegedly was born March 29th, 1897)???"

1 year and 11 months later, another person replies:

"What is with the claim of Ruby Mohammad (born 20.03.1897)?" and then cites the Wikipedia link.

2.Going back to 2005, it's funny though, Filipe Pristas Lucas updates the '108 and 109' year-old lists, on May 3, 2005, listing Ruby Muhammad as age 108.

Almost a year goes later, on February 25, 2006, Filipe Pristas Lucas posts a "March Expected Birthdays" where he lists Ruby Muhammad as expected to turn 109.

3.March 27, 2006, Filipe posts:

"Here is confirmation that Ruby Muhammad reached the eve of her 109th birthday on Saturday... (which has startled me a bit - I thought she was born March 29, but it seems that she was born on the 26th instead)..."

Bart corrects him saying it was 25th not 26th.

Half a year later, Thomas Breining replies to the post:

"Here is a recent report on Ruby Muhammad, and if she really is the age claimed, she should be one of the oldest laptop- and mobile-phone-users ever.

http://cbs13.com/local/local_story_279193704.html"

A month later, Robert Young on November 3, 2006, replies:

"Once again, an article about Ruby Muhammad that gives no early-life identifying details...who her parents were, her maiden name, what towns she lived in, or when she moved..."

4.Half a year later, on July 29, 2007, Robert Young starts a post:

"Recent research by Filipe Prista Lucas indicates that Ruby Muhammad is likely just 100, not 110, years old."

This was based on an e-mail sent to Robert from Filipe in regards to Filipe finding something in the 1910 census, sent 1 month before (June 18, 2007).

5.3 months later, on November 8, 2007, Plyjacks posts finding a Ruby Grier in Sandersville, Georgia, 1906 (rather than 1907), at RootsWeb. Rootsweb says her 2nd marriage was to a John Pittman. Robert realizes this analogy, that a Scooter story confirms Ruby Muhammad used to be Ruby Pittman. This census confirms Ruby Grier is Ruby Pittman.

6.On February 8, 2008, Robert Young posts a Scooter site where they list "Mrs. Pittman, or as also Mother Ruby."

Got bored..

Now to the point.

Part 2: The Synthesis.

Now this is where the synthesis comes in.

What we know now:

Newspaper source backed by census.

-According to Sacramento Bee article, Ruby Muhammad is born Ruby Macy Grayer.

-This is backed by ancestry.com, where a Ruby Graier on a family tree with the same parents, born 1906. The problem is the last name is not spelled the same.

-According to Scooter story, Ruby Muhammad is also Ruby Pittman.

-This is backed by Rootsweb which lists her 2nd husband as John Pittman.

Census backed by other census.

-1910 census lists her as the niece of Paul and Ida Howard.

-Rootsweb lists her mother as Rosa Howard.

1910 census says she is Black and born in Georgia.
Rootsweb says she is born in Sandersville, Georgia.

Additional notes.

The problem with the 1910 census spells her name as Rubbie M. Grier, which estimates her as being born in 1907 (saying she is listed as simply 3 years old).

Very little talk of the 1920 census on WOP, where they mention her as being born 1905, and Robert saying they might have gotten the wrong person.

No talk on the WOP of the 1930 census or 1900 census.

So what can we do about this synthesis problem? ;) Neal (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

What you can do is to publish your research in a reliable source. Then Wikipedia can quote that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Right: do it. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bart - let me tell you a little bit about colons. The fact thay you colon after BrownHairedGirl means you are telling *her* to do it, publishing it in a reliable source. If you used 1 *less* colon, you would be talking to me, and telling me to to publish it. Obviously, I suspect you were talking to me. Cheers. Neal (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC).

Disagreement with Canadian Paul.

After looking at Bart's talk, (where he said he's actually okay with putting Ruby Muhammad in the longevity claims category), we're really misusing the term "claim."

Ruby Muhammad (as well as Yakup Satar) can't really be added to the longevity claims category (so I changed my mind).

A claim is supposed to be where it should be 1 way and not the other.

I claim to be 20 years old. Canadian Paul could claim to be 22. But obviously, nothing's wrong with that, since there is no conflicting sources.

Likewise, longevity claims might need to be renamed to longevity contradictions.

Regardless of how it should be worded or meant, I'd now like to talk about the entrace requirements for that category.

We don't have any references or sources on the Ruby Muhammad page that claims for her to be born in 1907 or 1906, so how could there be a contradiction? (As far as the article is concerned.)

If anyone went to the Ruby Muhammad article, they would look at all the sources and references, and find they all point to age 110/born 1897. So where's the contradiction? It could only be found by miscellaneous stuff on the article's talk page. But that's not a reliable source.

I put the difference between "longevity claim" and "longevity claim category on Wikipedia."

If the person has no conflicting sources on Wikipedia, then they're not fit to join that category.

Of course, the moment a reliable source exists conflicting with age 110, and that source is used on the Ruby Muhammad article, then she would pass the entrance exam of the longevity claims (or longevity contradicions) category.

Same with Yakup Satar, since not even WOP has found any contradiction. Neal (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC).

I think you may have misread the point that I was trying to make. When I said that I might agree to putting Satar and Muhammad into the longevity claims category, I meant that we do that for EVERYONE who is 110+ that has not been verified by an international body of gerontology, as defined on the talk page of List of living supercentenarians. The "everyone is guilty until "proved" innocent" is not the best way to handle the situation, but eliminates the subjectivity of "I think Muhammad is lying and Satar is not." My stronger opinion is that the "longevity claim" category should be given a specific set of criteria for inclusion, even moreso than the List of living supercentenarians criteria, which was just a compromise to get on with business. It might be a good starting point though. For example, longevity claims may be for anyone who does not fit the criteria for "Verified supercentenarians" or "unverified supercentenarians" as defined on the list talk page. This would be close to the opposite of the above - people like Muhammad and Satar are innocent until proved guilty, but some of the more unreasonable claims such as Amash can be (somewhat) more objectively excluded from the supercentenarians categories. As it stands now, the longevity claims category seems to serve no other purpose than to throw anyone that GRG thinks is a liar into one place. Cheers, CP 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying, to use the category for whomever the GRG thinks is a liar. Basically, this is combining 2 of the below categories in 1, as the people whom the GRG think are liars can be both verified or unverified. So it doesn't matter whether there's a contradiction or not. Perfect. Neal (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC).

Part 2 - (added later)

Okay, basically I was trying to set standards into getting into the longevity claims category. Obviously, there should be a limit to difference in age claimed, since Susie Gibson claims to be 116, yet all the sources say 115. The case of Fannie Thomas is even closer, where the source suggests 10 days older than claimed (which we don't consider a big deal). The record low is the case of Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan, where 1 source claims she was a day younger.

However, from my previous post, I got a complaint from the angered Robert Young of course, where now I realize I have to be more specific.

We now seemingly want to recognize several categories. They are:

Verified non-contradicting cases.
Verified contradicting cases.
Non-verified cases.

Where Ruby Muhammad is a verified contradicting case.

Where contradicting means, multiple sources having different ages.

The thing is, we have, verified multiple-cases claims, and verified single-cases (non-conflicting) claims.

Non-verified claims are cases where someone claims an age, but no one can debunk. This is not the case with Ruby Muhammad since the WOP group claim she is a more specific age.

And then, verified claims, can have conflicting sources. This is the case of Moses Hardy. There's a lot of sources that say born 1893 as say born 1894. But the radius of 1 year is not that important. Matter fact, probably 90% of Robert Young's American cases could have a census record that is off by a year. We want to emphasize that if the claim is over the verified age of more than 3 or 5 years, like the case of Ruby Muhammad, should fit into the verified contradicting claims.

For the non-verified cases, I doubt we will have to worry about multiple claims (since most people don't claim to be born in more than 1 different year). Neal (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

I haven't quite digested all of this, but I think we're getting a little off-track of the Ruby Muhammad RFC here. I also point out that as long as Robert Young remains blocked indefinitely, he has no say on anything here and it might be for the best not to act as a proxy for his opinion or reprint it anywhere. Cheers, CP 17:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my example of the breaking 2 categories into 3, whom were:

Verified non-contradicting cases.

Verified contradicting cases.

Non-verified cases.

Is out of the question, from the above discussion. This section was a clarification of the above suggestion, which we've reached a verdict, so we can disregard this section now. Basicaly, we split the 3 categories into 2 categories again: verified cases, and cases where the GRG thinks are liars, which can be contradicting (multiple claims), or non-contradicting (just single claims). Neal (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC).

Footnote

Shouldn't we at least have a footnote on her age, even if it is original reasearch? It certainly isn't libellous, and I don't know how Mrs. Muhammad would be offended if people doubt she is 110. We could use the birth certificate as evidence since Mr. Young seems to be an expert in the field. I would add it myself if there weren't this huge discussion going around. WP:IAR to everyone involved. Editorofthewiki 22:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus above is no, we should not have a footnote on her age. Even those who disagree with the consensus aren't suggesting that we include original research. As discussed above, it most certainly can be libelous to say that someone is younger than they claim - by saying that she's 101 and not 111, we are essentially calling her a liar. Without a third-party, reliable source doing it first, we can't do it either. A birth certificate is an unacceptable primary source and Young's expertise is irrelevant until he publishes his findings somewhere else. WP:IAR never applies when WP:BLP concerns are involved, because inserting uncited material or original research on living people will never benefit Wikipedia more than following the rule. Cheers, CP 23:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not calling her a liar, we're just saying that there is discrepancy on whether or not she's one age or not, and we are assuming she's correct by saying that as the main birthdate. I've seen websites that say Muhammad is 100 or 101 and Young has published his findings at GRG and his mailing list. Not exactly the most reliable sources, but as I've said, he is an expert in the field. Editorofthewiki 00:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with adding footnotes are that they have to be based on something. The only something which suggests 1907 are the census (which is what the WOP group base their beliefs out of), which aren't even a reliable source. Another problem with using the census is that they spell her name differently, and we would need synthesis to back it up. Of course, I don't know what the requirements for what footnotes can be based off of, nor have I read any policy on them, so you can prove me wrong if you can. Neal (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC).

I think that 1907 could be true but on the other hand 1906 has more info. Plyjacks (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Article rewrite

I've carried out a minor rewrite with this edit. Somewhere above on this talk page, I suggested the major change in that edit, but given the continued discussion I am offering the main change up for review.

• I removed the explicit statement that she was born on a particular date: "born March 20, 1897" (though this remains in the infobox).
• I added the phrasing "No birth certificate exists to confirm her age, but she has stated in newspaper interviews that she was born Ruby Macie Grayer on March 20, 1897."

Any problems, please discuss below. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a rather successful way of addressing the ambiguity: you have explicitly attributed the d.o.b. to RH herself, without problematising it by saying "claimed" or "unverified". However, I doubt it'll stop the usual crew from re-inserting Young's Original Research^®. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But please stop sniping at Young. I've noticed this on several occasions now, and it is not acceptable to denigrate people merely because they are blocked or because they engaged in original research or because other people have or continue use his (or other's) original research. This is particularly unacceptable when referring to people by their real name. By all accounts Young is trying to further develop his career as a researcher and you using the registered trademark symbol (®) in this way to dismissively label his work is not helpful for the situation both on and off Wikipedia. I've mostly kept quiet on this particular aspect of all this (your continuing attitude towards Young), but I'm now formally pointing this out to you. I hope you will avoid the sniping overtones next time we discuss Young's work in the context of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Carcharoth (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Carch, I will be happy to desist when we are no longer faced with the same problem of a few editors persistently trying to add original research to wikipedia articles based on claims by Young which have not been published in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You can point out the original research without using sniping or denigrating overtones. Please just call it original research, dispassionately identify the source of the OR if you are sure where it came from and are prepared to provide evidence of its source, and leave it at that. Carcharoth (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this is so much fuss over the usage of the ® in Young's Original Research®. I suppose a compromise from BrownHairedGirl to please Carcharoth is to no longer use the ®? And just call it Young's Original Research without the ®? Is this what this big deal is about? ;p Neal (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC).

That and people trying to shrug things off with a ";p". The aim here is not to parody Young, or keep talking about him, or to keep trashing his reputation. The aim is to talk about the content. An earlier example of BrownHairedGirl talking in a denigrating way about a real, living person, who also happens to be blocked as a Wikipedia editor, is: "hype-merchant" and "shoddy". You, Neal, have also said things that were unhelpful, such as this poem, where you (even if you were joking) call him "dumb", followed by someone else calling him an idiot. I will also note that I am not the only one to agree that Robert Young, even if blocked, still has the right (as an identifiable, real person) to request denigratory posts, unsupported accusations, and otherwise misleading or unsupported posts made about him to be removed. See here and here:

"The courtesy blanking on the talk page was a living person issue because you had accused Robert of encouraging harassment of admins off wiki. He rightly took exception to that and denied it. I therefore removed that comment. Just because a user is blocked does not mean that you can make accusations about them." - User:Bduke 23:20, 3 April 2008

It is worth repeating that last bit, because BrownHairedGirl's response above seems to think that she has a license to continue to say such things, when in fact: "Just because a user is blocked does not mean that you can make accusations about them." Or rather, off-hand conversations on talk pages, while the user is blocked, is not the time or place to make such accusations. The place to make them is in a place where Robert can defend himself against the accusations. But while he is blocked, please, as a courtesy to an identifiable, living person, do not continue to make such accusations. Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Carch, any Wikipedia editor has the right to anonymity. Young chose note to exercise that right, and that's a choice he was entitled to make ... but the consequence of that is that criticism of his work on Wikipedia attaches to him personally. His choice, not mine.

I have said nothing about Young since he was blocked that I did not say before he was blocked: that he was an exceptionally disruptive editor whose aggressive responses made it impossible to conduct a dialogue with him; that he systematically used wikipedia to publish original research and promote his own reputation and that of his colleagues; and that he used a closed mailing to organise a systematic campaign of harrassment against me. You may find those facts uncomfortable, but that's the facts, and I stand by them.

I would be delighted not to mention his name again, but the reason that young is relevant in the course of this discussion is that some editors repeatedly try inserting original research because it is backed by Young, who was previously involved in inserting an d.o.b. in this article which based purely on original research. That why I refer to Young's Original Research®, because it is precisely what we are dealing with here. If you query whether it is still relevant several months after his departure, see how Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People was listing him as the project's "leader" only a few days ago, and look at the project's talk page for the associated discussion about his continued involvement. [ Added by Neal: rather than just clicking on her edit difference, here's a screenshot supporting her statement: http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/8651/wikiprojectwopgallerylx0.png ]

As to only making allegations where Young can respond, I am merely detailing what happened because you queried it, and it's all verifiable. I continue to remain deeply disappointed that you repeatedly express your concern about any injury to Young's feelings, but at no stage have you shown the slightest bit of concern about Young's use of his mailing list to organise a prolonged and vicious campaign of denigration and harassment against me. If you are really concerned about fair treatment, that applying that principle to the victims of Young's harrassment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, I look mainly at on-wiki stuff. Having said that, you probably should, at some point, make a clear statement of what exactly happened (both on and off-wiki) back in November. Describe it without revealing identifying details, but fill out the background to "prolonged" (how long?), "vicious" (what makes it rise to the level of being vicious?), "denigration" (how were you denigrated?) and "harassment" (what exactly do you mean by harassment?). You can't just say something and then say "those are the facts" and "it's all verifiable", and not expect people to object if they think the story is one-sided, or because they notice you are not verifying anything. I'll make one thing clear though. If it turns out that you are right, I will be the first to apologise, but until then, please don't profess "disappointment". Instead, you could say straight out whether you think it is acceptable to call someone a "hype-merchant", or say that a blocked editor's work is "shoddy". If you were blocked and someone called your work shoddy, how would you feel? Once that is clear, then it might be possible to move on to other aspects of this. For example, do you agree with what Bduke said? Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I betcha Canadian Paul can show you logs of the off-wiki stuff. All he has to do is type BrownHairedGirl in Robert Young's WOP search button, and paste some conversations. Neal (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC).

Boy Carcharoth, I really don't have anything much relevant to add, except that I think I like Robert Young more than you. This whole "don't talk smack about him because he can't defend himself" doesn't apply to me though. I've known Robert Young at least a year and a half before coming on Wikipedia. I also know him through MySpace and off-line via the phone. As far as acting like I don't care about him, it's hard to tell by stalking my contribs, or cases where I'm sarcastic/for the humor (such as the poem), but just take a look at the bottom of user talk:Mentality, and you'll see what I mean. I have to say, though, Robert Young does have a lot of faith in you, before I met you, really. Matter fact, when I 1st found out he was blocked, and e-mailed him, the 1st thing he mentioned in his reply was "let Carcharoth know I'm blocked." You have mine (and his), respect. Neal (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC).

No offence, but your comment is meandering a bit. Do you want me to respond to anything specific in what you just said, or to respond to the whole lot? Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't think Young's followers will stop with the re-inserting Young's Original Research®? Well gee, that's saying a lot about Bart. Don't forget he got a 72 hour block for that. I think that that's enough for Bart to "give up." Well at least, all he has to do is prove me wrong! ;) We'll see... Neal (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I like this compromise and want to thank Carcharoth for it. Hopefully it will make everyone happy. Cheers, CP 21:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even me of all people, "dear" Neal. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

:) Yes yes, I agree, per Bart Versieck and Canadian Paul.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NealIRC (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

I'm with Robert on this one, because he knows this stuff and we don't. I think that she was born in 1907. But I'm not going to change her article for certian reasons one is that the Nation of Islam will be upset with us. But I still think she was born in 1907 (Not 1897). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyjacks (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

New website

check this out, http://rubymuhammad.com/home Plyjacks (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The domain is registered to Muhammad's daughter, which makes it all the more sad that parts of the "About Ruby" section are lifted from Wikipedia. Cheers, CP 07:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well they must have faith in the wikipedia article then, if they are drawing the information from that. This debate above has been very interesting, but it did make me wonder how this lady would feel if she knew that so much discussion could come from the question of how old she is! For the record, even if she is only 101 or 102, she is still doing great! :) Cjeales (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Is she 111? Here's what I think.

Last year (perhaps), someone shared on this page a link to a RootsWeb gedcom for a Ruby Grier, born 3/20/1906 to Lee Grier and Rosa Howard. There was some debate as to whether this was a reliable source or not. In and of itself - no, it's not. However, I think I have found census records which will back the claims this person made in the RootsWeb gedcom.

So the claim is this Ruby Macie Grayer (aka Rubbie M. Grier, Ruby Grier) was born 3/20/1906 (although I would say 1907). This website claims that her father was Lee Grier. There was one Lee Grier living in Washington County, Georgia in 1917-1918. He registered for the draft for World War I. He was born 12/26/1889 in Sandersville, Georgia (sound familiar? that's where Ruby Muhammad was born). That would put him at 17 years old (or 18) when Ruby was born. The gedcom also claims that her mother was Rosa Howard. Where's the proof. Well, I don't have any records that show Ruby's mother as Rosa. HOWEVER, Rubbie M. Grier was found with Paul and Ida Howard and their family in 1910. She was aged 3 (which is why I say she was born in 1907) and is listed as neice of the head of household - HoH being Paul, Ruby's mother Rosa's brother. Also living in the household was Paul's mother Cecelia and brother George. Earlier, in 1900, Cecelia (Sily in 1900) was found in a household with several of her children including Paul (per 1900, born Sep 1876 aged 23 and per 1910, aged 38) and none other than Rosa (please refer back to RootsWeb gedcom which claims Ruby's parents were Lee Grier and Rosa Howard). Rosa is listed as born in Mar 1889, which would make her a few months older than her husband Lee, but yet born the same year.

I would say more research needs to be done at a level to which I don't have access (meaning going to Sumter/Washington Counties, Georgia and researching), however I think this is more than enough to conclude that Ruby Muhammad was not born in 1897, but rather 1906 or more probably 1907.

For those that have access to Ancestry.com, here are the links to the records I found:

1900 census showing Ruby's mother Rosa and uncle Paul

1910 census showing Ruby living with her mother's brother Paul

Ruby's father Lee's WWI draft registration card

Jlrich (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We've hashed over all of this to death above. The consensus was that all of this is a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policies. Please see the request for comment above for the entirety of the argument and the conclusion. Cheers, CP 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. What isn't original research? The gedcom? Jlrich (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that you have done original research. Kudos to you, but wikipedia is only supposed to link to the result of research done in other places. However, perhaps this is the kind of research that could complement for example the pages of www.grg.org about people whose age has been showed to not be supercentenarian. If it was presented there as "debunked case" or whatever it would be called, wikipedia could link to it. However, as of now the original research is not presented in a "reliable source" and can therefore not be used in wikipedia. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, Mrs. Muhammad should be in Longevity Claims. Not in the supercentenarian category. Plyjacks (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreement: that's true. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The consensus above on the RfC is very clearly against this, as it cannot be sourced without original research. Cheers, CP 22:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Robert Young will be writing an article soon. Extremely sexy (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's neat Bart when is he writing it. BTW the way did you see Ms. Muhammad's site? Plyjacks (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope very soon indeed, but he is currently extremely busy with his thesis, and yes, I saw it, Plyjacks. Extremely sexy (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Research about Ruby Muhammad has been placed in published, reliable online sources, such as:

http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-07182008-143721/unrestricted/young_robert_d_200808_masters.pdf

http://www.grg.org/

Ryoung122 08:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Supercentenarians, Longevity Claims, and Longevity Myths

Greetings,

Way back in 2004 or so, the original categories (created by Louis Epstein) were basically:

A Supercentenarians (validated cases only) B Longevity Myths (unvalidated cases)

Because some felt that this was too POV (for example, calling Benito Martinez of Cuba a "longevity myth" upset a Marxist editor, who of course wouldn't admit that the claim was being used by Castro as a tool to promote the myth of Marxist longevity...something that can be sourced to the Economist magazine), I created a compromise "longevity claims" category: that is, all claims to 110+ that are not verified, but meet certain criteria such as a stated date of birth (not just "I'm 135") and the age claim must be at least possible (up to 130 years old). Claims older than that, such as Thomas Parr, are rightly called "myths."

Understanding this background, the articles on Ruby Muhammad clearly state that her age is unverified. Therefore, the correct category for use is "longevity claim." This has no bearing on the "original research" debate. If, for example, in the future a published newspaper reported that Ruby's year of birth may be 1907 instead of 1897, then it may be time to consider Ruby's case a "longevity myth". One of the tenets of age validation research is that "the burden of proof must be upon the claimant." This is different from an ordinary age, say, 86, where the standards may not be so high. Wikipedia's policy is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" and statisticians have calculated that only about 1 in 10 million Americans are aged 111 or over. This claim seems "extraordinary" enough to me. Not only that, the standard cutoff of 110+ was established well before Ruby reached this ostensible age marker. Thus, one cannot claim that using pre-existing standards as bias.Ryoung122 10:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:V trumps all of the above. The consensus above includes the fact that the "longevity claims" category implies that Ruby Muhammad may not be telling the truth; until there is a reliable source arrives that questions the validity of that claim, the actual truth and likelihood of the matter is irrelevant. This is a living person, we cannot claim that her age is not what she and all the sources say it is unless someone else says it first. If she was deceased, to be honest, I might not care that much and there would be more room for argument. The consensus on this page is not likely to change until a source comes out and questions her age, at which case there can be speculation on her age (in as much as the source presents) and someone can put her in longevity claims. As it stands, we cannot verify whether she is telling the truth or not, but we CAN verify that all sources claim her to be 110, which is what the consensus version of this page currently states. I know that the last sentence makes it sound precisely like she should be in "longevity claims", which would be fine if she were deceased but not, as per consensus, if she is alive. Cheers, CP 15:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, Your interpretation is a stretch. Ruby Muhammad's own biography admits that she was illiterate until 1946. It is not a stretch to think that she genuinely didn't know how old she was. It does not require us to assume that she is lying. In addition, a correct categorization of "longevity claim" does not imply that she was NOT born in 1897...it only implies that her age claim has not been endorsed..."verified" by international authorities. You could put Rosa Rhein of Switzerland in there, for all I care. All the articles on Ruby state, if anything, that "no birth certificate exists," none have offered anything of a hint of proof whatsoever. Even her own family website noted that her age was uncertain. Her family tree, posted by a FAMILY MEMBER, listed her as born in 1906.

Also, I disagree that consensus is on your side. I note that in March you were close to agreeing to the proper categorization. Look, almost all the other cases are correctly categorized, if not all of them. Removing likely commenters such as Bart Versieck and BHG and asking for third-party, independent commentary to get their viewpoints would be welcome. I will of course be asking my mentor, Carcharoth, for advice.

Wikipedia or not, since Ruby is in fairly good health, and in reality is documented to be born in 1907, it is not too much to think she will still be living for several more years. Let's say that, hypothetically, she is alive in 2012 and denied the world's oldest person title. What then? Does WP:BLP still trump that? As for WP:V I have withheld comment on the GRG page on the principle of it, that I believe that your current stance is original research and does not reflect established sources. Yet I have also have published material that calls her age claim into question (but citing myself would be COI, wouldn't it?). What proof is there that Ruby is a "verified" supercentenarian?

One more option: we could divide the "supercentenarian" category into "verified" and "unverified." What do you think of that? That might be an acceptable compromise; save "longevity claims" for deceased persons or those with an age claim older than the current oldest verified living person.Ryoung122 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We came to a consensus through the WP:RFC process several months ago. Everyone, even Bart, has been able to abide with because it was an agreeable compromise. If you disagree, you're right, it's best to bring it up with User:Carcharoth, who came up with the consensus in the first place. Cheers, CP 20:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This one is going to run and run isn't it? If she is really younger than what is stated, then she may well end up claiming "oldest person" title. I'm half inclined to wait until 2012 and see what comes out in the wash, but seeing as the current wording of the article seems to be accepted, I think what needs addressing now is the infobox (I don't remember that being there - and it directly states her birth year as fact, which oversimplifies things) and the category. Could people sort out what the difference is between Category:Longevity claims and Category:Unverified American supercentenarians? There should, really, be an intervening category of Category:Unverified supercentenarians, if that is any different from the "claims" category. Once that is sorted out, we can discuss where this article should be categorised. Carcharoth (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings,

It may be hard to believe but CP and myself have come to a compromise solution, the details of which remain to be sorted out. I have created the intervening "Unverified supercentenarians" category. I propose it be limited to those claims to age between 110 and 114, or between 110 and younger than the current oldest living person. Claims to an age of 115-129 go to "longevity claims" and those 130+ to "longevity myths." It seems reasonable because some cases take time to verify (of course the category could be changed, if necessary) but if no evidence is produced by age 114 or when it's time to potentially claim the world's oldest person title, then it should be evident that the case is not going to be validated by then.

Also, this case has become a test case. It's not really about "just" this case, but about how Wikipedia's policy deals with the issue of extreme age claims. I do believe that "extraordinary claims" trumps the argument over WP:BLP, but how "extraordinary" does a claim have to be?

Finally, I did in fact allude to Ruby Muhammad's age not being correct in a published source, my thesis:

http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-07182008-143721/unrestricted/young_robert_d_200808_masters.pdf

Whether that counts as a "reliable source" is another issue.

Sincerely, Robert YoungRyoung122 10:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the new category:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unverified_supercentenarians Ryoung122 11:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Glad that got sorted out. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

GRG

The GRG made an article on another claim, Frank Calloway who claimed to be 112 turned out to be 93 at the time (see here: http://www.grg.org/FCalloway.htm). Ruby Muhammad was mentioned to be a decade younger according to here: http://www.grg.org/CalmentFraud.html. If the GRG, which is a very reliable source says that, then we keep it here as is. She was born March 20, 1907. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

maybe real age

this web site says that she was born in 1906 not 1897 http://www.deadoraliveinfo.com/dead.Nsf/mnames/Muhammad+Ruby i don't know what to think of this. is she 104 or 113/114. i am not going to edit anything until i know for sure. thanks Mcdonaldsman —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC).

Career / accomplishments?

There is only one sentence about what Ruby Muhammad did to become notable: Muhammad joined the Nation of Islam in 1946 and was named "Mother of the Nation of Islam" in 1986 by Minister Louis Farrakhan. What did she do for Nation of Islam, why did she receive the honourable title, what makes her notable?--134.130.4.242 (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ruby Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715112425/http://medical.presslib.com/family-medicine/660074.htm to http://medical.presslib.com/family-medicine/660074.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)