Jump to content

Talk:Gertrude Weaver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two living 116-year-olds

[edit]

This is great! Now we have two living 116 year olds from the year 1898! Since August 2012, there have been four verified 116th birthdays: Besse Cooper, Jiroemon Kimura, and Misao Okawa and Gertude Weaver that are both alive as of 22 November 2024. And with Susannah Mushatt Jones turning 115, we now have four living people age 115 or older! And if Bernice Madigan reaches 115, we will have five! I hope we can have six when Emma Morano joins the 115 neighborhood on November 29, 2014, and maybe up to fourteen for next year with eight remaining living 1900ers, and the number of living 115 year olds may reach 50 by the year 2030 and 100 by 2070! (Deaths in 2013)

This violates wiki talkpage guidelines: Talk pages are "not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Wikipedia is not a messageboard, fansite or blog. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter of Slave Charles Gaines

[edit]

Gertrude is the Daughter of Charles Gaines who was a slave in Louisiana from his birth in May 1861 until he was freed in May of 1865 at the end of the Civil war. She is the only known child of a slave from the Civil War still alive in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:A500:2A1:399A:A4D3:4E9C:201E (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great to include, but we need a reliable source. Do you know one? Let me know. I am One of Many (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source for children's names?

[edit]

I checked the linked MSN article and all it says is that one of her sons is still alive at 93 but gives no names. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were added by an IP. Since they are dead, I didn't think it necessary to remove them right away. It's possible they are in one of the Camden Newspaper articles that are subscription only. I'm thinking about getting a one-month subscription so I can get more details on the family. I am One of Many (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at ancestry.com 1930 federal census shows the listing of her family. Genie Weaver is head of the household . The children are all listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:A500:2A1:2134:9BA8:5E36:5D86 (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The names of her children are trivia (as is much of the other unencyclopedic content) and IMO using a census record to establish their names is OR. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The names and years of birth of Gertrude's Children are not Trivia. The are proof of what establishes the fact that she is the oldest living American. The reason she is posted to begin with. Having Children listed who if all were still alive range in age from 98-90 proves she is 116 years old. The 1930 census a public document that can be viewed by anyone is the source of that proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:A500:2A1:2134:9BA8:5E36:5D86 (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I only said their names are trivia (in the context of this article). They are incidental to the dates of birth, which would at least be relevant if properly sourced. Secondly her children prove nothing. Thirdly it is not up to wiki editors to "prove" anything, that is OR and violates a core wiki policy. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic content

[edit]

@User:DerbyCountyinNZ, the reason these details about her life are in the sources is this is precisely the information people are looking for in encyclopedic articles. She is notable for one thing and that is being the oldest American. People want to know how she lived, how she lives now. We can't build encyclopedic articles without including the information that is relevant to the subject of the article. In general, we need to make these articles in this area more comprehensive and take them to high article status, ideally to good. So, how about we cooperate and talk about how we can expand this and other articles in this area over time? --I am One of Many (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from WP:OTHERSTUFF applying there is nothing so trivial in the Calment article as who visited her and when she got her manicures. Including such material is more likely to prevent the article from being upgraded rather than help it (not that achieving a higher grade is all that important. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may misunderstand the relevance of Jeanne Calment to articles like this. It has nothing to do with notability, it has to do with what is relevant content for an article on something that is notable. In large part, we determine that by the content of reliable sources. Details about a person's life who is 116 are notable. That is what secondary sources write about and that is what people who read Wikipedia. I'm more than willing to work with you on this, but your position is not policy based. I'm waiting for more material to become available and then I plan greatly expand this article, largely with sourced details about her life. I am One of Many (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Not policy based"? Actually WP:BLP is one policy and that refers to, amongst others, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. The lead section of BLP is quite about the care that must be taken with material about living persons. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I was a bit harsh. It's just that what is and what isn't important changes from article to article. For an article on some athlete, what they say eat may or may not be trivial depending on what they compete in. For BLPs on supercentenarians, article focus on lifestyle, diets, social factors. Those are also thought to be important factors in longevity. I am One of Many (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be requesting an RFC on this (in a few hours) to clarify what is appropriate content for such articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with that if you think it would help.I am One of Many (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies

[edit]
NAC: There is consensus that encyclopedic content should be limited to material that is directly related to her extreme longevity, and that trivial matter that is not directly relevant should be trimmed. However, that consensus does not specifically identify what material should be trimmed. As a result, closer is not editing or abridging the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Longevity-related biographies rely on a single notability (viz. the person is very old). Encyclopedic content should therefore be related to that person's longevity. Content such as

She receives regular visits from friends and family. Her granddaughter, Gradie Welch (age 78) visits her in the mornings and on Sundays, she helps Weaver decide what clothes to wear for Sunday church services at Silver Oaks.[4] On a weekly basis, she receives manicures, engages in Bible study, attends concerts at church groups and schools, and does "wheelchair dancing" three times a week. The wheel chair dancing is one component of her "Sittercise" class. Weaver explains that "We chair dance because we can’t get up anymore."[4]

would seem to not be longevity-related and certainly does not seem at all encyclopedic. Similarly

At her 115th birthday celebration, she was said to have been "waving and just eating it all up."[3]

does not seem encyclopedic. This sort of information is included in many longevity-related biographies and a clarification from experienced, neutral editors as to whether or not it is appropriate would be welcome. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, this level of detail about the lifestyle of a person probably should not be included in a biography (living or dead), but what level of detail to included in an article should be determined by the context of the article and what content reliable sources provide. Gertrude Weaver and related biographies of supercentenarians are notable because they are supercentenarians. There is a great deal of interest in supercentenarians both by the public and as the subject of scientific research. Scientific research focuses, in part, on their lifestyle (what do they do, what is the quality of life, etc), on diet, and health. Reliable sources typically provide detail on lifestyle, quality of life, and health. In large part, this is because people find this interesting and the public as well as researchers believe these factors are related to longevity. Thus, almost all substantial reliable sources on individual supercentenarians report details of health, lifestyle, and diet making these details suitable and appropriate encyclopedic content for biographies on supercentenarians. I am One of Many (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - That material absolutely ought to be removed. The article ought to focus only issues that make Gertrude notable. Frankly, I'd go so far as to say this entire article could be deleted with a WP:BLP1E justification. I'm not sure being really really old is cause for notability. NickCT (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "encyclopedic" for any Wikipedia subject is determined, in large part, by consensus. In some cases some quotidian material that one might exclude from a more notable individual is appropriate, since it helps balance their biography as something more than "got really old". In this case, I would agree with Derby that the material he has cited is not encyclopedic, adds little to the value of the article, and is likely being used as filler to disguise the fact that this person has (thus far) received the minimum of what it would take to pass WP:N's notability guidelines (although, admittedly, this is still far more than what many other supercentenarian articles are based on). In any case, some quotidian material might be acceptable, but the above is excessive and trivial. Canadian Paul 23:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a big deal to me either way. Supercentenarians are the subjects of considerable scientific research into understanding aging. This research focuses on genetics, lifestyle, diet, and social interactions. Reliable sources typically details focus on lifestyle, diet, and social interactions, so that is what I would like to include. I do find it amazing that supercentenarians are considered less notable than cartoon characters such as Popeye, Daffy Duck, or Wile E. Coyote and The Road Runner. I am One of Many (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I am sympathetic to I am One of Many's position that the details of supercentenarian life is of interest for a number of reasons, but the excessive trivial detail should be trimmed. Gamaliel (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree DerbyCountyinNZ is spot on about what should be considered encyclopedic content and what is simply trivial detail. General information about her lifestyle is definitely encyclopedic, we should aim to remove anything that goes into specific detail outside of notable occurrences such as President Obama's letter. Fraulein451 (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Discusssion

[edit]

Mr. Derby, Statement that you have removed is, Source is present, can be validated.

Please do not remove as not encyclopedic. It is the personal thoughts of you. Even if you thought that there is no need, should not be removed.--223.134.207.65 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derby, how can you argue that "Encyclopedic content should therefore be related to that person's longevity" when you advocated for the removal of information such as the fact that Misao Okawa is the second-oldest ever Japanese person?

What CAN be included?

Ollie231213 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of opposing position

Background: Supercentenarians are people who reach the age of 110 or older. They are the subject of considerable scientific research [1][2]. Although our article on Supercentenarians is in bad shape and does not adequately incorporate relevant scientific research, if it did, it would include sections on genetics, diet, lifestyle, and social interactions, which are all topics of research on supercentenarians. Most supercentenarians are not notable WP:GNG, but the oldest often receive national and international coverage, typically over several years. They are often recognized regionally or nationally. When articles are written on them, they typically (1) discuss how old they are in relation to other supercentenarians, (2) discuss their family, and (3) discuss aspects of their lifestyle, health, and diet.

Question: What is appropriate encyclopedic content for biographies (living or dead) of supercentenarians?

My view is that in the case of supercentenarians it is appropriate for a biography to include reliably sourced details about individuals that match topics of scientific research. These include:

  • Details about health
  • Details current lifestyle
  • Details about diet
  • Details about social interactions

This does not imply adding every available detail, but sufficient detail so that the reader can picture what life is like (or was like) for a supercentenarian. This can typically be accomplished with a few sentences such as

She receives regular visits from friends and family. Her granddaughter, Gradie Welch (age 78) visits her in the mornings and on Sundays, she helps Weaver decide what clothes to wear for Sunday church services at Silver Oaks.[4] On a weekly basis, she receives manicures, engages in Bible study, attends concerts at church groups and schools, and does "wheelchair dancing" three times a week. The wheel chair dancing is one component of her "Sittercise" class. Weaver explains that "We chair dance because we can’t get up anymore."[4]

I am One of Many (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Canadian Paul there is nothing in the above statement which is encyclopedic, none of it relates to being a supercentenarian (the only notability for which she is included). It is just typical, everyday info which could apply to any elderly person. It is not wiki's job/purpose to give the reader a picture of what life is like for a super-c, that is for fansites, blogs and other non-encyclopedic organisations. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This lifestyle info is not typical of "any" elderly person because only 1/100,000,000 are still alive at that age. I think most people, if they stop to read an encyclopedic article on supercentenarian want to know what it is like to be that old. That is why almost all reliable sources put that information into their articles. As far as I know, there are no "fansites, blogs and other non-encyclopedic organizations" for supercentenarians. I don't disagree that too much detail can be added to an article, but a paragraph that gives the reader an idea of what life is like at a given age for a supercentenarian seems to me to be highly encyclopedic. I am One of Many (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the meaning of opinion of ​​derby's. there is no should be no Notability of the oldest american and second oldest person in the world. If you are a hate supercentenarian articles, it should be ignored.--223.134.207.65 (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I have a problem with is editors who have no comprehension of what an encyclopedia is and repeatedly disregard wikipedia guidelines and consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a discussion about this issue, then there hasn't been a consensus. Editingisthegame (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2014 (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.

Retired!

[edit]

Is "retired" necessary in the info box? Retired what? If no information is available for her past employment, surely retired has zero significance! MattSucci (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --I am One of Many (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gertrude Weaver. 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) 05:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

115 years, 276 days

[edit]

Can you not believe this, no one has died at 115 years, 276 days


110 years, 276 days - Christina Morrison on 25 July 2006
111 years, 276 days - Shin Hosono on 20 December 2013
112 years, 276 days - Marie Mornet on 5 January 2007
113 years, 276 days - Anne Samson on 2004-11-29
114 years, 276 days - Kiyoko Ishiguro on 5 December 2015
115 years, 276 days - Nobody
116 years, 276 days - Gertrude Weaver on April 6, 2015


Do you think someone will die at 115 years and 276 days eventually?, we need that filled in. For 117 years and 276 days nobody reached it this century so far even though Nabi Tajima came close on it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gertrude_Weaver&oldid=1250286680"