Talk:Fauja Singh/Archive 1

Centenarian

As of today, Fauja Singh is a centenarian, that is true. I added those categories myself. He is also a Marathon runner. As world record holder, it is his claim to notability. But the newly edited lead sentence improperly combined these two fact into a misleading sentence. He is not a centenarian marathon runner. To my knowledge, there is (as of yet) no such thing. We have no such world record. Singh would be the most likely candidate, but he has not run a documented marathon in 7 years.

(Preceding unsigned statement by User:Trackinfo, 06:46, 2 April 2011)

He has run a marathon now (16 October 2011). -- pne (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Running" the most recent marathon is a generous way of describing it. 8h11m is akin to walking at just above 3mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.230.145 (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Running the 100 metres in over 23 seconds is also unremarkable, until you add in the factor that he is 100 years old and that is four seconds faster than anybody else his age has ever been able to do it. The mere fact that he completed the marathon distance at any speed at that age is a unique accomplishment. In the perspective of what you consider running, at 100 years old, the concept of running has to be viewed differently. Observers commented on how he actually achieved a lift to his steps, which at that age again is remarkable. Trackinfo (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guiness Record

The article states that he is entered in the Guiness Book of World Records for his most recent marathon, but that is not true. Apparently, because records were not kept in 1911 where he was born, he can not prove his age with a birth certificate. This article states that Guiness has decided not to ratify his record(s). www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/10/24/sports/AP-ATH-Centenarian-No-Record.html. I am wiki-edit illiterate, so I'll leave it to someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.145.26 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! did the "Guinness World Records" not try to find facts by other scientific means, did they not try investigating facts using other methods? I guess there are methods to accurately measure age using "Saliva Samples". Forensic and Criminal investigating agencies probably knows 100s of methods to ascertain age of a person. Wonder why "Guinness World Records" did not use them, or if they did, why did they not publish the same. Can editors find details from this angle and update the article about them if there are any already?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for Guinness, but I have been in records committee meetings for other organizations where Fauja Singh's age was discussed, considered and rejected. In that situation, our volunteer based public service organizations do not actively pursue information. I actually wish they would be more activist in this regard. They don't have a limitless budget. They don't hire investigators or scientists. They deal with the case as presented by the athlete. On the application for the records, Fauja could not present evidence to prove his age. Until he can, like every other record holder already has, his records will not get certified. Trackinfo (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Until he can"!!! What does happen with other records those require age as a parameter? Does "Guinness World Records" does not care to test their accuracy. Criminals all over the world are known to fabricate legal documents to suit their needs. So, does it mean "Guinness World Records" can be flawed if the legal documents are fabricated and because "They don't have a limitless budget."? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, there can be flaws in any system. Guinness has the reputation for taking due diligence in what they report, as do the other organizations I am involved with. An organization's reputation is earned by the respect the public has for the quality of the information they produce. Wikipedia, for example, has a lower reputation in many people's eye because our public editing policy can allow any crackpot to write whatever they want on it. Having experienced wikipedia for years now, I respect the information because I know of the constant worldwide peer review any statements posted here gets. While I have had my nose bruised by some of the results, there is great care here in not reporting bad or disputed information. By that same logic, what is reported here has passed the scrutiny of many learned eyes. In regards to Guinness or any other record producing body, if you believe anything they report is wrong, take that up directly with that body. Present your case, use facts, proof, evidence etc. They might accept your new information. As I said, I watched the process in person. As soon as Fauja's age came in to question and they decided the proof was not there, not only were his new records not accepted, but his previously accepted records were also removed. They corrected themselves when they were questioned. To point at other records that have been accepted and make a wild accusation that they have fabricated documents behind them does not equate. Prove the fabrication and those records will come down just as quickly. And if you want, find the scientific evidence you suggest is out there to prove Fauja's age and maybe his records will get reconsidered. Trackinfo (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You know, there can be flaws in any system." I agree. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have my issues with the powers that be too. Wikipedia is my vehicle to include many of the people who have been excluded by the system. List of world records in masters athletics is mostly my work. I included Fauja and many other athletes with marks superior to the listed world records, highlighted by the blue background signifying the marks have not been accepted by the official agency. It is all we can do until the system is improved. Trackinfo (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable age

The article states that he "As a young man, Fauja was an avid amateur runner, but he gave it up at the time of the 1947 India-Pakistan Partition". If he was born in 1911 then he would have been 36 in in 1947. It is a stretch to consider 36 "young", certainly for a runner. And it would certainly be unusual for most Indians of that age at that time to afford the luxury of maintaining a running career, especially if he was married. There are no indications when he married or of the age of either his wife or any of his children (that I know of, can anyone clarify?) but if his eldest daughter died in childbirth when he was 81/82 then either he married late, which would be unusual, or had a considerable wait before the birth of a daughter. Remembering that a reduction of just 5 years considerably reduces the exceptional nature of many of his performances, while 10 years eliminates almost all of them. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His daughter died while giving birth to her third child. A woman can give birth till late forties. Also he wasn’t running on tracks in India. There were hardly such facilities available back then. Running involved village sports and not the professional facilities available in the west. Though he holds a passport bearing 1911 as his birth year. That must be based on some supporting evidence. His own kids must be 80 by now Unlikewater (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fauja Singh. 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:

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) 05:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fauja Singh. 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/20111017173311/http://www.bvaf.org.uk/oldnews.htm to http://www.bvaf.org.uk/oldnews.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) 21:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Fauja Singh Keeps Going into Fauja Singh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: no consensus to merge. Stonkaments (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Book does not appear independently notable and would be more useful as a section in the biog article ... where it doesn't appear to be mentioned at present though another biography has its own section. PamD 06:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book has been covered in numerous notable independent sources. Thus, it deserves to have a standalone article. I haven't got a chance to elaborate on the content, that is why it is a stub at the moment. A simple Google search can give you a lot of information about it. So feel free to write more about the book if you want. Dial911 (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The book does in fact appear to be independently notable. See: [1] [2] [3] Stonkaments (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

World records

Hello. Could someone explain what this sentence means: "He has beaten a number of world records in multiple age brackets, but none of his times have been ratified as records." Are his record times disputed, or unofficial in some sense? This seems like an important detail that should be clarified, and supported by a reliable source. Right now it's uncited, and as written it is quite vague and confusing.

(Disclaimer: I'm not familiar with Fauja Singh, so apologies if I'm missing something obvious, but I happened to come across this article and this line in particular jumped out at me.) Stonkaments (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see there was previous discussion of this issue at Talk:Fauja_Singh#Guiness_Record. So it sounds like Guiness hasn't ratified the records because there are questions concerning his age, is that the gist of it? Stonkaments (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]