Talk:María Capovilla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Ecuador This article is part of WikiProject Ecuador, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ecuador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.
The María Capovilla article is part of WikiProject World's Oldest People, an attempt to expand, update, and improve all articles relating to the World's Oldest People.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article was nominated for deletion on December 9, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Source of Guinness quote:

1

Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:53:04 +0000 Subject: Re: Planning for Announcement of New "World's Oldest Person" From: "Craig Glenday" To: "Robert Young"

Hi Robert,

Yes, not quite what I expected! To be honest, we use an external PR company (which usually changes each year, to keep prices competitive). When it comes to press releases, we hand over rather more than they ever use, and it’s often cut up, re-ordered or re-written to suit the market. In this case, I gave them your full quote, but it seems in one version, I got the credit, and in another, our Brand Manager, Kate White, was “quoted”!

→ R Young {yakłtalk} 19:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 1889 to 1887

WHERE IS THE SOURCE that her year of birth was 1887 as opposed to 1889?? Georgia guy 19:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That must have been vandalism or a mistake. I have the documents and they say "1889." → R Young {yakłtalk} 04:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Hypothetical speculation"

  • How is it "hypothetical speculation" to say "For it to increase to 5th, she would have to be alive on March 7, 2006 and to become the oldest human being ever, she would have to live until February 25, 2012."? That is a verifiable piece of information, and is a fact, not a prediction or speculation. Of course, it is not certain this will happen, but that doesn't stop it being a conditional fact. Furthermore, that information should be included, because it is essentially the information that makes the entire encyclopaedic. The reason this article exists is because she ranks among the oldest people ever, and in my view any information pertaining to this is relevant, and of great interest. When we talk about record-holders and pioneers, it makes perfect sense to place them in context with other record-holders and pioneers. Jdcooper 15:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • First, we have people down to age 110, so I disagree that Maria Capovilla has to be linked to the all-time record to be encyclopedic.

Second, there's always a chance of finding new cases, perhaps even older than Maria, so we can't say that even if she did reach 2012, she would in fact break the record. Maria herself was a surprise case that superceded two others (including Hendrikje van Andel) as world's oldest.

Third, we are talking about a human life here. I don't think it is proper to say that "for George H.W. Bush to reach age 100, he would still have to be alive in 2024." The current ranking is more important than a hypothetical future one. To set up a future "goal" is unfair and negates the person's current importance as is. Also, with only a 30% chance of being alive one year from now, to project six years into the future is wrong. No Encyclopaedia Britannica ever predicted the death dates of those currently living. → R Young {yakłtalk} 04:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, with Maria's passing just a few months later, we can see how ridiculous it was to claim 'if she makes it to 2012..'. Such comments mis-understand that to get as far as she did was already a stretch of plausibility. Certainly, to go from 116 to 122 is extremely unlikely...→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

This article states that in March 2006, she was able to read the paper, then in the next paragraph says that in March 2006, her health had declined and she could not read the paper, which doesn't quite make sense. I'm not sure which sources have been used here, though I'll see if I can find the right dates. -- Mithent 16:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the earlier date to December 2005, re: the Fox News article. No source seems to be given for the March 2006 update though. -- Mithent 16:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally visited Maria Esther de Capovilla on March 5-7, 2006. The family said that Maria really started to decline when she was visited by too many journalists and that wore her out. She stopped talking and stopped reading the newspaper. However, it seems some of this may be strong will. The first day I visited, Maria said not one word to anyone. However, on the last day she said a prayer with her prayer partners; it seemed that they were able to draw her out. However, it was clear, and the family said as much, that Maria was in great shape as recently as Sept 2005 but now was in only fair shape. This doesn't necessarily mean close to death; it means she has pulled back from her daily engagement. Maria 'walks' only with the assistance of two people, one holding each hand, and walks very slowly. Yet even this would make her the oldest-known person on record to stand up, albeit assisted. From the www.grg.org website:

March 11, 2006; Earlier this month, Mr. Robert Young, our Senior Claims Investigator from Atlanta, GA personally visited Sra. Maria Esther Capovilla of Ecuador, born September 14, 1889, and who was recently been confirmed by the GRG and The Guinness Book of World Records to be "The Oldest Living Person in the World" at age 116 years. Upon his return, Robert provided us with the first two photos below: → R Young {yakłtalk} 06:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Images: Public Use

I don't know why some people take it upon themselves to destroy the work of others. Please explain the removal of the photos for this article before removing...not simply 'copyvio' that's too easy. Why is it 'copyvio' when others have stated that such photos can be used according to 'fair use' principles. And, I'm irritated that little 17-year-old children with nothing better to do have masqueraded as all-important 'editors,' when in fact they spend not one moment discussing an issue before deeming something that was acceptable for months as suddenly unacceptable to them. → R Young {yakłtalk} 06:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a SHAME that Wikipedia, allegedly a free and voluntary work, would so unscrupulously delete the voluntary works of others with something so vile as a computer 'orphanbot.' These were temporary media images, used for public use. The images also specified the source. Yet, orphanbot doesn't like something, out it goes. I'm not about to put the time and effort in to come up with a new photograph. If Wikipedia likes to self-destruct, that's not my problem. → R Young {yakłtalk} 04:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I think this article is copyvio, because it is from a newspaper? Newspaper images are strictly copyrighted, so not fair use. I hate orphanbot, but I think in this case the image is a copyvio. Jdcooper 10:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, 'fair use' said that an image could be used, even if copyright. That is in fact what 'fair use' is about. If an image were NOT copyright, then it wouldn't matter. → R Young {yakłtalk} 22:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading from the User:OrphanBot page, the program is marking images for removal that do not have any copyright source usage information in them - ie no description. The image is now gone so cannot confirm if it did or not, I think it has to be uploaded again if you want it back on the page. The remaining image on the page does not have any description either and is also tagged for removal and will go in the next 7 days if you or someone does not add a copyright tag to it. From Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags, it seems that if you think the image is fair use, the tag to use is {{Fair use in|Article}}. Although that will probably send OrphanBot away, it says in the template that it isn't sufficient because you must "also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed fair use rationale.". I don't know how you do that.--Rye1967 19:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
(This follows the comments on my talk page). I've done some more research on User talk:Carnildo re the bot. From Wikipedia:Image use policy rules 1 and 2, and image must have a copyright tag and must have source url etc in the descriptio box. For the image that has already been removed, there is no way to know what was specified in the summary box when it was uploaded. It has to be uploaded again, and both of those have to be specified in the summary box. I don't know where you got it, you said China Daily, so it would be easier if you were to repeat the process that you used to get it, rather than me starting over.
The remaining image is also tagged to be deleted because although it has copyright info, it has no source info. Your comment says something about Google images, but I am not sure if that comment is the summary box or not. I do not know how to edit the contents of the summary box and I have asked Carnildo on his talk page. I also see from the image upload page that:
Images found on websites or on an image search engine (like Google Images) should not be uploaded to Wikipedia but for exceptions, see Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Free image resources. So, even if we manage to edit the summary info, the image may not be acceptable.
--Rye1967 01:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo

[edit] Dead?

Is she really dead? My God, I came to Wikipedia and saw this, but went to Google News search and other news outlets and could not find it. From now on, Wikipedia is my #1 news source. Holy crap: it's fast, while Google sucks! 142.176.56.138 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maria died today. Because it's the weekend, don't expect AP news wires to get going until late tonight at the earliest.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

AP is reporting it. This is just posted from the AP live feed: The world's oldest person, Maria Esther de Capovilla, dies in Ecuador at 116

QUITO, Ecuador (AP) _ Maria Esther de Capovilla, the oldest person on Earth, according to Guinness World Records, has died at 116 years of age, her granddaughter said. Catherine Capovilla, 46, a property manager and real estate agent in Miami, Florida, said Capovilla died Sunday at 3 a.m. local time (08:00 [/T]) in a hospital in the coastal city of Guayaquil two days after coming down with pneumonia. Her funeral was planned for Monday. Born on Sept. 14, 1889, the same year as Charlie Chaplin and Adolf Hitler, Capovilla was married the year the United States entered World War I _ 1917 _ and widowed in 1949. Robert Young, senior consultant for Gerontology for Guinness World Records, said Elizabeth Bolden, of Memphis, Tennessee, is the likely successor as the oldest person. «For all practical purposes, the next oldest person is going to be presumed to be Elizabeth Bolden. She is 116, but she was born 11 months after Capovilla.» Capovilla was confirmed as the oldest living person on Dec. 9, 2005, after her family sent details of her birth and marriage certificates to the British-based publisher. Emiliano Mercado Del Toro, of Puerto Rico, retains the title as oldest man at 114.

Another typical journalistic error: he is 115. Extremely sexy 12:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And why wasn't her age proven until December 2005? 124.180.18.141 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Young will answer you with detailed precision. Extremely sexy 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several reasons:

1. The Guayaquil newspapers are not linked to the AP or Reuters news wires. Thus, stories of her 113th and 115th birthdays did not make the international press.

2. The family didn't realize that the GRG tracked people's ages until May 2004, when they noticed Charlotte Benkner's obituary in the LA Times...at which point Maria was already 114.

3. Just two weeks later, the world's oldest person died (Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan), and Maria should have been the successor. However, the family didn't have the documents yet.

4. After a year of research, the family sent the documents to Guinness on Aug 27 2005.

5. Due to personnel changes, there was a delay in document processing at Guinness.

We knew by late November that she would be the new title holder...the rest was about arranging press releases.

In fact, people waiting until their loved one is 113 or 114 happens quite often. Corrine Taylor of the U.S. recently died at 113, missing the Guinness title of 'oldest living American' only because they didn't bother to apply, not because she wasn't oldest.

→ R Young {yakłtalk} 00:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title succession boxes

There is no need for two title succession boxes. The reason there are two for Elizabeth Bolden is that following her death, the 'oldest woman' and 'oldest person' title split, for the first time in 20 years. Most of the time, there won't be a split.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 14:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I just put them (back) in. Extremely sexy 16:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)