Talk:Mary Ramsey Wood/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Age

The age claimed, 120 in 1908, is far outside the proven ages of the time. The 'world record' then was only 110.Ryoung122 05:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't trying to "rewrite history"--it was written in good faith, by a reliable editor who is experienced in historical research, using cited sources. If the sources are wrong, then other sources need to be provided. Katr67 06:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
How about the 1880 census, which lists Mary Wood, age 69, living in Hillsboro, Oregon, daughter of Catherine, and her parents born in England?
U.S. Census > 1880 United States Federal Census > Oregon > Washington > Hillsboro > District 129
'Faith' is not enough when the age claimed is so far outside the realm of believability. Ryoung122 06:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, do you have a hyperlink to that info so it can be added to the article? Since none of us are experts in gerontology as you are, it's possible we didn't realize the 120 figure is outside the realm of believability. Try assuming good faith on the part of your fellow editors, please. Katr67 06:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Look, I assumed a bit of naivete, not bad faith. Age 120 has been reached only once in proven history (and that was in 1997). The record in 1908 was then age 110. Note that it appears this woman was about 97 years old. You can check it out at Ancestry.com
Run a search for "Mary Wood"+Oregon and then check the list of candidates, and you'll see only one in the town she's supposed to be in, and she's listed with her daugther Catherine. This is, however, a subscription-based service so you'll have to sign up, at least for a 'trial' if you don't have it already: [1]

Sincerely Robert Young Ryoung122 08:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Complete Fabrication?

Ugh! This is worse than I thought:

  • 1860 United States Federal Census
  • about Mary Wood
  • Name: Mary Wood
  • Age in 1860: 30
  • Birth Year: abt 1830
  • Birthplace: Tennessee
  • Home in 1860: Washington, Oregon
  • Gender: Female
  • Post Office: Hillsboro
  • Value of real estate: View image
  • Household Members: Name Age
  • John Wood 71
  • Mary Wood 30
  • Source Citation: Year: 1860; Census Place: , Washington, Oregon; Roll: M653_1056; Page: 627; Image: 502.

The 1860 census lists Mary Wood as age '30'! If accurate, she would have been only 77 years old. Given her husband's age (71) it's possible that she inflated her age later to make it look like the age discrepancy with her second husband wasn't so bad. Or it's possible that the 1860 understates her age (women do tend to understate in the middle years). Note this is the only Mary Wood in the town and her husband's name is John.Ryoung122 08:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is all great. One huge problem, it is all 100% original reasearch. That means, you need to go get it published in a reliable source, then you can quote and use it. Till then, wikipedia guidelines do not allow for it inclusion. And by the way you obviously did assume bad faith per the message left on my talk page about being a relative. Don't kid yourself or try to fool others. These actions you have taken, along with the large amounts of complaints on your talk page, could eily lead to an RFC. I suggest you tone down your actions. Aboutmovies 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it's NOT original research...I posted it already to my
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/
which, by the way, happens to be the #1 hit when searching Yahoo for 'oldest people'. Yahoo has 60+ million users in the US alone. I hardly consider being the world's leading expert not a reliable source. Further, your response to FACTS has been an appeal to emotion. I suggest you apologize for this comment:
I suggest you tone down your actions.
Since when are FACTS a problem? It's like getting mad because your favorite cyclist tests positive for drugs in the Tour de France. Don't blame the drug testers, blame the cheaters. If this family didn't make up a fictitious story, she would never have been famous in the first place. Should we reward that?
Unlike YOU (who DELETES unwanted diatribes) I haven't changed my talk page in quite some time.
Also, I'm not sure what THIS means:
"eily lead to an RFC".Ryoung122 19:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I will submit an RFC for your actions. Thank you.Ryoung122 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Folks, Robert Young actually IS the leading world authority on authentication of claims of great age by human beings. Pay attention to what he's telling you. SBHarris 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I'm not sure why you're jumping all over Aboutmovies. I'm the one who tagged your section as original research. If there is an easily accessible (free) link to the census data, I'm sure we could include it in the article. The speculation about the motivations of the family however, stray away from the subject of the article and are, as I said, merely speculation (which has no place in an encyclopedia). You may be an expert, but it's still original research until something is published about this case somewhere outside of Wikipedia. Katr67 23:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Age controversy

 This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details.

If age 120, Mary Ramsey Wood would have been the world's oldest person and would still, even today, hold the record as "oldest living American". However, a cursory reading of the many longevity myths shows that age exaggeration is quite common and that few claims to age 115 or above turn out to be true.

In this case, the Mary Ramsey Wood story is suspected to be a family myth.{{fact}} Note the claim that her mother also lived to be 110. Yet upon looking for evidence of age, we find a "testimonial fallacy" ("the Bible entry said so, but we lost it").

On July 29, 2007, supercentenarian researcher Robert Young located what appears to be Mary Wood in the 1880 census, suggesting a birthdate of 1811 and thus an age of 97 years old at her death. Not only did the town match, but the daughter's name and birthplace of her parents matched as well. Conversely, there were no "Mary Wood"s in the state of Oregon anywhere near the age claimed in the 1880 or 1900 census. Today, the Mary Wood story can serve as a typical example of the "familial longevity" myth—the claim that one's ancestors are long-lived, which is typically exaggerated beyond reality by fifteen to twenty-five years or more.

Making a Mountain out of a Molehill

User AboutMovies,

In regards to this comment below:

No, I'm not a relative. Please check the sources listed, and if you notice there is a picture of the headstone. Then take a moment to read WP:ASG, and learn how to check sources. Aboutmovies 18:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked about this because, yes, the article itself smacks of 'original research.' How many people would know who this woman's parents were? There are a quite a bit of details that would make such a question a REASONABLE one to ASK...not to ASSUME. If I had ASSUMED you were a relative, without asking, then perhaps that would be a different story. However, to ASK is NOT to assume. So, all you had to do was answer the question.

Instead, you respond with extreme negativity, such as:

1. Presuming that I don't know how to check sources: "learn how to check sources" is the height of arrogance.

2. Make threats based on alleged superiority of position:

And by the way you obviously did assume bad faith per the message left on my talk page about being a relative. Don't kid yourself or try to fool others. These actions you have taken, along with the large amounts of complaints on your talk page, could eily lead to an RFC. I suggest you tone down your actions. Aboutmovies 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrogance and condescension don't make you right. You misspelled 'easily,' should I then make fun of that? Or should I 'assume good faith' that it was just a typo.

Also, a quick check of sources finds that:

A. NO authoritative source, anywhere, lists this woman's age as validated.

B. The own newspaper article you QUOTED noted that the 'evidence' of her age was 'now lost.'

C. I make more than 1,000 edits a month, I expect a few complaints when I'm making an impact.

You repeated 'assume good faith' several times, but failed to respond to my initially-positive response.

Hence, I cannot 'assume good faith' with only negative responses that amount to dirt-throwing, appeal-to-emotion fallacies. Last I checked, the US census was considered a reliable source, and a simple review of the literature which has been out for more than 100 years explains why a simple headstone (end-of-life document) is not proof. It is evidence, but not proof, of age. There is a difference.

Now, if this woman were a famous painter, her age would be a sidenote. But since the only reason for her listing in Wikipedia is her age, then it stands to reason that if that age is claiming something beyond established record for the time and evidence suggests the claim is false, then such an issue is relevant.

Notably, the George Fruits case was similar. An article started BY A RELATIVE was found to be based on news report, but when an investigation in 1978 was done, his age was shown to be false, and his claim to being a Revolutionary War veteran was also false. Yet the reaction then, as you are doing now, was one of 'hostility' and 'appeals to emotion,' coupled with threats of retribution.

Yet last I checked, A. Ross Eckler Jr worked for the Census Bureau and Guinness World Records--the world's best-selling book. Last I checked, the same could be said for myself.Ryoung122 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason Aboutmovies knew the names of Wood's parents is because they are in the sources he cited. I'm not sure how you jumped to the conclusion that this is "original research". I believe this is why he suggested you read the sources he provided. Again, this is a good faith effort on the part of an outstanding Wikipedia editor, who merely used the sources available to him. Rather than jump on his case about Wood's supposed fraud, you might take it up with the people in 1908 who may have perpetuated it. Nobody said the census wasn't a reliable source, but the way the controversy section is currently written, with yourself as the source does create some concern about original research. I don't think either Aboutmovies or I are particularly emotionally invested in how old this bloody woman is, he just wrote an article about one of the more notable people buried in Hillsboro Cemetery and suddenly it became a lightning rod for false claims of longevity everywhere. I don't care if she was 67 or 120 when she died, personally I just want the article, like any other I work on, to be as close to Wikipedia standards as humanly possible. Perhaps we should chill out and focus on that, rather than on who is being uncivil to whom. Katr67 23:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As Katr says, I too could care less abut her age. But in response to topics: A: a newspaper is considered an authoratative source on Wikipedia. B: I don't see any quotes in the article. C: I and Katr and hundreds of others make over 1000 edits per month, what does that have to do with anything? And what intially positive response are you talkin about? This: "If you'd like to re-write history, I'd expect you to produce actual documentation." where you talk about me re-writing history? How is that positive, especially in light of the sources provided in the article? As to an RFC, that has to do with not only your accusations on my talk page, your actions in editing the article (did you notice where you removed her title from the lead?), and all the actions you have taken elsewhere that have led to complaints on your talk page ("large amounts of complaints on your talk page"). I don't think anyone here cares how old she was, but to correct it you need to do it properly. That means published, reliable sources. For instance with the census data, all you can do if you are quoting that is to state what it says, you cannot then add your own commentary and interpratation of the source as that becomes original research. Do a full investigation which would include checking the mircofilm to ensure an accurate transcription and going through census by census, then go to a reliable source and publish the results. I'm sure The Oregonian would love to publish something like this, then it can be cited. Until then this is all well and good, but original research. Aboutmovies 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV needed

Greetings,

This article was created, taking 99-year-old newspaper clippings at face value. This is 2007. Values have changed over the past century. To simply assume that a local story like this is 'good journalism' is not acceptable. I note from one of your 'source' citations:

http://www.newspaperabstracts.com/link.php?id=19277

- Her Age is Authentic -

There has been some doubt expressed as to the correctness of her age, and Mrs. Reynolds wrote to relatives at Warm Springs, Mo., asking for a record of the family Bible. The answer was received and the excerpt gives Mrs. Wood's age as 120 last May. This letter, which the Oregonian correspondent saw and read, was lost, the holder not at that time (several years ago) appreciating its importance. The family moved from Warm Springs and it has been impossible again to get into communication with the writer of the letter giving the date of her birth.

Let's read that again. "There has been some doubt expressed as to the correctness of her age." In other words, your own source recognizes that even in 1908, her age was questioned.

"This letter was lost"

"It was impossible to get into communication with the writer of the letter giving the date of her birth."

Thus, the own sources you use for this case leaves substantial room for doubt. It effectively falls for the 'testimonial' fallacy...'because I said so.' Sorry, the news article admits that her age is unproven, undocumented...uncited. The journalist was engaging in 'original research' to presume that her age was authtentic. You were engaging in POV bias in writing this article from a tone that presumes the story is true, when in fact it is not.Ryoung122 23:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, 99 year old newspaper clippings? I could have sworn one references was a 1921 book, and another a 1976 newspaper article. Were did those go? As to the doubt, the author of the newspaper article titled the section "Her Age is Authentic" so I don't think they were doubting, they were just aware of people like you who may doubt the claim. Interesting that you only cherry-picked the quotes you wanted. Why did you leave out "...letter, which the Oregonian correspondent saw and read..." that section? That is sort of writing is how you end up with WP:NPOV articles. Now, I am not saying that she was or was not 120 years old. But the only reliably sourced documents say she was. And news flash for you, most things in a newspaper are original research, otherwise that would be plagerism and get them fired (you may recall an instance few years ago at the New York Times). You need to seperate the regular world from the wikiworld. The rules are not the same. We cannot just make stuff up or add everything we want to, to Wikipedia (for instance my elementery school does not have an article), it has to already exist in published media. Wikipedia is not the publisher of original thought, thus the research needs to be done elsewhere and then published in a reliable source. Otherwise it is original research and will be removed. Aboutmovies 15:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

Just to re-state: If a newspaper makes a BIG CLAIM in bold print but explains away the claim in the fine print, that hardly counts as a 'reliable' source. Since the fine print explains that they had no evidence, that is significant, given the conclusion that was reached ("Her age is authentic") must have been based upon wishful thinking/local boosterism.Ryoung122 09:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

Reposted from Katr67's talk page.

Compromise: OK to keep the {{fact}} boxes. This has been blown out of proportion. I asked if this were a family member because the article had a lot of information that most people wouldn't know or care about, and there is a history of article creation by family members (i.e. George Fruits, Philip Mayne. This is not to say that a 'family member' article can't be objective or useful. Note the difference: the former, George Fruits, was by a 'scorched-Earth' family member who insisted the story was right, despite all evidence pointing to the claim being a complete fraud. The second article, Philip Mayne, was created or extensively edited by a family member who was a journalist and avoid straying into the areas of speculation.

We can agree that it was claimed that Mary Ramsey Wood was 120 years old in 1908...that is not the issue. The issue is, the article should be written from a NPOV tone that doesn't presume the story is correct. Note if she died at 76, there wouldn't be an issue. However, since she claimed to be the 'oldest person' that makes her age extraordinary, and thus subject to higher scrutiny. I do not start investigating assuming the claim is false; I go where the data leads. A search of the 1900 census finds that there was not a single "Mary Wood" in the state over 100 in 1900. Note if age 120 in 1907, she would have been '113' in 1900 and '103' in 1890, and '93' in 1880, etc. Thus, a simple census check should confirm (or deny) the story. I ran a search and I found that she was only '69' in 1880 and '30' in 1860. This suggests that she had a history of age inflation (to go from 30 to 69 in 20 years; then from 69 to 120 in another 27 years). The 1860 age could also be 'understated' since the husband (John Wood) is 71. However, in 1880 there seemed to be no motivation for age change. Given that the daughter, Catherine, is '44' in 1880 (69-44=25 years), it seems that age '97' is most likely correct. Thus, Ms Wood went from understating her age to overstating it.

As for references, I provided the reference citations on the talk page. If you still don't believe it, e-mail me at ryoung122@yahoo.com and I can send you the documents.

One more comment, when a claim to extreme age is made, the burden should be upon the claimant to prove their age; to 'assume' the age is true is, in fact, 'original research'--an uncited allegation.Ryoung122 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations

We need a better citation than a self-posted reference to a members-only Yahoo group. Please read about reliable sources. Katr67 00:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done a little geneological research, so I do know that the raw Census data is published and online -- so that shouldn't be a problem as a reliable source.
However, one major problem with Census returns is the perennial problem of undercounting: census takers would go door-to-door to ask questions, & often missed people due to a large number of reasons. The best known example is the "corner-house" issue, where a house that lay two census-taker's routes might be skipped by both since each thought the other got that house. A unfriendly dog &/or an owner with a shotgun was another problem. Even today, with all of benefits of modern technology, it has been estimated that some areas see an undercount of as much as 5%. In short, an omission in a census return should not be used to support an argument from silence. -- llywrch 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I do find it incredible that no one is placing the burden of proof upon the claimant. There is NO assertion, anywhere, that this woman's age was proven, and the entire assertion of 'notability' rests upon the notion that she was '120.' Citations include a 'tombstone' (not notable...lots of people have tombstones) and a yellow-journal news article that asserts that, even though the evidence was 'lost' the case must be true, with no evidence given other than a 'testimonial fallacy.'

Further, the 1880 census is a 'positive' ID, not an 'argument from silence.'Ryoung122 20:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Katr's advice to CHILL OUT is the best advice in this thread. With such contention about the woman's age, I think the best thing would be to remove all references to her age from the article until we can get it sorted out. A self-published Yahoo page most certainly does not qualify as a reliable source, however that doesn't mean the "original research" involved is incorrect. The most important thing here is to make sure the article serves the reader with accurate and verifiable information; if we're not in agreement about it, then the information should be removed until we can agree on its accuracy. -Pete 19:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when does the other side follow such advice? Do we see Katr 'chilling out'? A census citation is factual and to remove that is simply employing scorched-Earth tactics. You say

"The most important thing here is to make sure the article serves the reader with accurate and verifiable information; if we're not in agreement about it, then the information should be removed until we can agree on its accuracy."

Yet the fact of the matter is, there are myriad citations that can be made to prove that this woman's age is NOT validated, and further, without her age being what is claimed, there is no longer a rationale for notability.Ryoung122 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


If all references to this woman's age were removed, there would be no point to have this article in the first place.Ryoung122 20:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I did what I could to make the article more neutral regarding her age claim, but we still need citations to the census data (even though this definitely pushes the boundary of original research). We can't really take out the references to her age because there isn't much notable about her without it, and all the article would be able to say is "She lived, she died", since all the history in between is tied to the dates 1787-1908. She was quite celebrated in her day (nobody else has been crowned as "Mother Queen" of Oregon, as far as I know) for this supposed longevity, however, so even if the age claim is bunk, she's still notable for people having thought she was the oldest person in America. Notable frauds still get articles. I look forward to Mr. Young publishing his findings in a third-party source so we can add that to the article. Katr67 18:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I does seem that the users have violated the principle of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN

for this article. Please cite ONE third-party source, anywhere, any time, any place, that asserts that this woman's age is proven. Zero.

Ryoung122 20:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations Au Contraire

On the other hand, a search of the internet (try Google, for example) finds little or no notability for this person, and there is a notable lack of valid citations for this article. A tombstone is evidence but not notable (lots of people have them). The own citation from 1908 noted that there was no evidence of this woman's age. Subsequent research found evidence that this woman's age is fradulent.

Further, to write this article starting with the position that she is '120' is POV.

Third, the burden of proof must be on the claimant, not the other way around. The best that should be done is to write that it was 'claimed' that she was 120 but that her age was not verified and evidence suggests she was about 97.

Note: suppose a newspaper article from 1908 asserted that there were 'canals' on Mars and the user used this as 'evidence'? While a belief at the time, it is now known to be false. Further, the burden should be on the article writer to 'prove' that there were canals on Mars, not the other way around. Otherwise, the article would have to be written to suggest that 'it was believed at the time that there were canals on Mars' and an explanation of where this concept came from, and how evidence today shows that it is false.

Finally, I find the claim for 'third-party' evidence of this case to be preposterous. Most people couldn't care less about this case, but it is important that, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that it be written from a factually-correct point of view.Ryoung122 20:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Be mindful of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Aboutmovies 20:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The 1908 newspaper would not be allowed as proof of canals on Mars, & its addition would be removed; it would be allowed as proof that (at least some) people in 1908 believed that there were canals on Mars. Hopefully, the newspaper would identify who believed this. Wikipedia also documents the existence of erroneous beliefs, as well as beliefs some people believe are in error -- otherwise God would doubtless be on its umpteenth tour through WP:AfD on the basis of any number of arguments. -- llywrch 21:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, which is why the Category:longevity claims exists to document instances where a significant number of persons in a community believed that a person's extreme age claim might be correct, even when general concensus holds that it was not, or at least not proven to the degree that it would be universally acceptable to reporters writing an international obituary.

Guinness World Records began as the 'arbiter of longevity' in 1955, but disputes over age can be seen even in the 1908 article. The difference: in 1908, the burden of proof was upon the disputer; today the burden of proof is upon the claimer.

Thus, I am asking for this article to be written from a NPOV that notes that her age claim was hypothetical and disputed...i.e. 'thought by some to be the oldest person in the world in 1908' instead of 'she died at 120.' I think I've said enough.Ryoung122 21:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, I made an attempt at editing the article so it read from a NPOV and also showed that the age claim was disputed, while leaving the historical information intact. If my attempt was inadequate (which it may have been, as I am not perfect), it makes more sense to discuss why on this talk page, as I requested above, rather than continually reverting to an old version of the article. You now say you are asking that the article be written from a NPOV, but before you didn't ask, you simply reverted. Four times, I might add. Katr67 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I think we are coming closer to a consensus. However, in regards to 'citation needed' I already told you I would e-mail you the citation if you want to add it. The real problem is that ancestry.com is a paid subscription service. Alternatively, I also attempted to post the citation on the 'talk' page, which strongly suggests that someone can do the little extra of 'citation'...given you didn't like the 'WOP' citation. Also, I disagree that if I post something to a private blog or webgroup that is 'original research.' Yahoo itself (with 60+ million viewers) lists it as the first search result...clearly, that means that it has been means-tested. Not all college basketball players are notable, but some are. Likewise, we should judge a source on its own merits. Finally, it is up to others to decide if a source is reputable or not. While many 'groups' have shown to be 'not reputable,' they have often been deleted/removed. This one has survived 5+ years and, unlike news stories, maintains an archived web of material so you can get the whole story, any time of day you please.

The bottom line: if you take me out of the equation and do a little research, you will find that the scientific community considers Sarah Knauss to be the U.S. recordholder, and second-oldest verified age ever after Jeanne Calment. Thus, to fit the facts a claim to age '120' must be worded so as to be hypothetical.Ryoung122 22:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

ryoung122@yahoo.com Ryoung122 22:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And we have no problem with the most likely dubious age claim. However, the lead of the article needs to conform to WP:LEAD (that is stop removing the Queen Mother of Oregon bit as that is what makes here notable and the entire arguement does not go into the lead), and there needs to be non-orignal research sources de-bunking the claim. You posting on a Yahoo! group does not cut it (was your claim on Yahoo peer-reviewed by others in the group who double-checked your work and examined the micro-film?). That would be like me posting something on my website and then citing the info here. You are the member of several research groups, just write up your findings and have your friends there put it online. Very easy, then it is sourced, and there is no arguement from me about original research nor any issues with WP:RS. Aboutmovies 22:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As Robert Young finds the sources by checking the census, he pastes them to his WOP group for us to see - it isn't intended to be an individual source. As far as having to be registered members, screenshots of the census can be taken if that's what needed (which would ultimately be sources from the government's databases for the census checks if I'm correct). Now, if Mary Wood was 120, I'd put her in my http://www.nealirc.org/Gerontology except, like the Gerontology Research Group, we'd like birth certificates, baptismal records, census checks, etc. Newspapers would be secondary sources, i.e., the author of a newspaper had to get his sources from somewhere, and that source is what we're looking. However, that may not pertain to Wikipedia since any newspaper site is a good enough source. If the problem of citations is because users need a registered account to view ancestry.com (etc.), that can be arranged. Anyways, as per my own personal belief, I'm interested in original sources, so that, an old newspaper saying such and such about someone's death is not a substantial evidence for me to list her as 120 in my tables. As per Wikipedia, well, we'll list the sources stating her debunked age. Neal 23:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A plea from the copy editor

With this diff you can see where someone had to repair an edit that had been made previously. This is what happens when articles are reverted wholesale, rather than working with the most recent version. Anyway, I'm not watching this article anymore, because frankly it's a tempest in a teacup, but hopefully someone will check the previous edits and restore the copyediting. Katr67 14:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd start building up from this version, but I'm tired of being accused of bad faith so I'm not touching this anymore. Katr67 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

I'm here in response to the request for informal mediation. I'm reviewing the information today and possibly tomorrow. After I have read the article and the entire talk history as well as relevant user talk page correspondance, I'm going to start reading the reference material to the subject. I hope to have enough information to start a discussion sometime tommorow.

I'm glad to be working with all of you and I hope that we can find a workable compromise to allow this article to reach consensus. I wish everyone a good day. Trusilver 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have reviewed the article and the talk pages. I have reviewed all of the relevant user talk page entries and the cited references. It is my position that all parties are acting in good faith even though you are in disagreement on the subject itself. There are many things with reputable citations are not factual, just as there are many things factual without reputable citation. However, per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

With that having been said, I have two questions that I would like you to answer. - One for Katr67 and Aboutmovies and one for Ryoung122. The question is the same: Ideally, what would you like to see added or taken away from this article?" Trusilver 02:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on this case, Trusilver. I need to run now, but I'll respond to the question sometime today. You might drop a note on the other folks' talk pages--I'm not sure they are watching this this article right now. Katr67 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like at a minimum to have mos of the "age controversey" moved from the WP:LEAD to the section for that info. The lead as a summary should mention the age controversy, but the heavy lifting if you will needs to be in its section. Then regrading that section, as it is all original research and marked with "citation needed" tags, it needs to be pared down to a simple "the age of 120 is doubtful based on the odds of living that long as being 1 in X." Otherwise the info such as "double-life" is speculation. The sources of a Yahoo! dsicussion group do not meet WP:RS, and though the Census info could be introduced, it only shows what it shows, and User:Ryoung122 is introducing original research by "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" if that information is used. I personally doubt Wood lived to be 120, but that is what the reliable sources currently state, and until there is a reliable source saying otherwise, Wikipedia guidelines/policies do not allow for the introduction of the information. I have no problem with a mention of the statistical part as that can be cited, or mentioning that a Mary Wood was listed on the census in 1880 as age X, and in the 1860 at age X. But saying more than that becomes original research. Aboutmovies 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see the article reverted back to the version I diffed above that adds back a clear encyclopedic lead with context and the most notable part about her being crowned the "Mother Queen" of Oregon (which is undisputed, whether or not she deserved it), and that also takes away the speculation about the motives of the people involved, which I agree doesn't belong in the lead paragraph, while keeping mention of the age controversy. Agree that we can add references to the census data (which may or may not "prove" she lied about her age so it should be clear that there is a person in the census with a similar name and family but until someone is able to examine and publish birth certificates etc., the information should not be taken as the final word) and a well-cited sentence about the statistical probability of her actually being 120 being very low. Also I think we should add a small italicized disclaimer to the "Oregon" section that says something to the effect that "The following dates reflect the assumed birthday of 1787 and may not be accurate". What should definitely be taken away and rewritten is the entire "Age Controversy" section and the part with Mr. Young using himself as a source, because his debunking the claim and then posting this information to a private Yahoo group is still original research, as it is self-published, even if it is now on a third party site. The speculation about the family myth should be taken away as well. Also, the section header "Age controversy" is misleading, because until a week or two ago, there was no controversy because her age hadn't been questioned. I'd suggest naming the rewritten section "Age discrepancy" or something like that. In the future, I would love to see a citation added from a third-party source such as a newspaper article that debunks the Ramsey Wood myth, or a paper about the longevity claim that has been published in a scholarly history journal or the like. Obviously neither of these exist yet, but they should. The debunking of a long-cherished myth is just as interesting as the myth itself. Katr67 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example of what I would like to see the article look like, with the above-stated additions and subtractions and a few other improvements in syntax, punctuation, etc. (note:I request that you please don't edit this as it's only a userfied temporary version) I can't think of another way to relay the woman's personal history that is neater than putting the disclaimers at the top of the sections. Otherwise, we would have to repeatedly say things like "Supposedly, she was married in 1804". That is the trickiest part of the article, I think, because it shouldn't appear that the dates of these events are "the truth" and yet they give something of a timeline of Wood's life. Katr67 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The above 'example' seems to be far more NPOV than the actual message-board comments made by User Katr67.Ryoung122 09:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to wait until Ryoung answers the question so we can see where we stand before we move on. Trusilver 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

The fact of the matter is, the entire reason for this person being 'notable' on Wikipedia is her alleged age of '120'. Note that the age claim is based entirely on hearsay and not evidence; the articles that cite her age as such even say that the evidence to prove her age had been lost, but that the claim should be accepted based on the 'testimonial' fallacy. The NEWSPAPER articles were written in 1908. This is still a time with the likes of Harry Houdini and traveling circuses, and when audience members are told to believe something based simply on 'because I said so' or because an audience member 'randomly' picked tells everyone this is true. The concept of 'science' was not a big one for local news media coverage...or politicians. Like shaking hands or kissing a baby, an age 'blessing' from a politician might point to 'notability' but not 'verifiability.' Even if no evidence against the claim were turned up, an age of '120' is considered to have the odds of 10 billion to 1 to be true...which, given the Earth's population in 1908 (less than 2 billion) makes is more than likely that not a single person on Earth was that age at that time. Note it is also true that the current oldest verifiable person even in 2007 is Yone Minagawa of Japan...aged 114...and that only once has a person undisputably reached age 120 or greater...Jeanne Calment. Therefore, the article needs to be written in a HYPOTHETICAL format.

A hypothetical format involves some degree of 'suspension of disbelief.' If there is an article about a science fiction TV show, everyone knows the show is not real, but when it comes to age claims, the general public is still largely uneducated and may actually believe that such ages are not only possible, but likely...when all scientific evidence has pointed in the other direction.

Knowing this, I did a little research and located what I believe to be Mary Wood in the 1880 census...age '69' with a 44-year-old daughter. The match included several matching points: not only was it the correct state, county, and town, but this Mary Wood was born in Tennessee and her parents were from England. Further, her daughter's name matched. Conversely, there were no possible matches for a "Mary Wood" that was born anywhere near 1787. this contrasts decidedly with a case such as Delina Filkins, whose age was verified through 11 census matches, a family Bible entry, etc.

I have two issues here:

A. The article needs to be written in the hypothetical...such as "was believed at the time by some to be 120 years old." Even the 1908 articles indicate that not everyone in 1908 believed the claim, which was based on the alleged existence of a letter which had been lost.

B. The claim of 'original research' is not valid. Original research involves putting information on Wikipedia that is, regardless of truth or not, not verifiable from outside sources. Yet I have outside sources for this including both the census records (primary source) and my analysis of the census records and the case, which was posted at my webgroup here:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/

I contend that such a source is NOT 'original research'. Since I am already the gerontology consultant for Guinness World Records and Guinness is generally regarded in the 'Western' media as the 'official arbiter' of longevity (Time Magazine said as much in 1997), it becomes difficult to argue that I am not a 'reliable' source. Further, a search of Yahoo...one of the four biggest web portals in the world...turns up the above group as the #1 return:

Web | Images | Video | Local | Shopping | more » Answers Audio Directory Jobs News All Search Services Preferences Advertising Programs Advanced Search

Search Results1 - 10 of about 8,490,000 for world ' s oldest people - 0.15 sec. (About this page)

Also try: world's oldest person, world's oldest people nursing home More... WEB RESULTS Worlds_Oldest_People : World's Oldest People ... and photographs regarding the world's oldest people (108+). Only proven cases ... The "world's oldest person" according to Guinness World Records and the ...health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People - 17k - Cached

It should be noted that not all groups or blogs are created equal. However, when a blog or other online source shows itself to be consistently reliable, and becomes something turned to by the general public, then it should be considered as a 'reliable source.' To not do so is akin to not allowing comments by Roger Federer (in a Wikipedia article about Roger Federer) that was posted on Roger Federer's web blog. If you can't believe #1, who can you believe?

Please note that there is a conflict here mainly because of an overlapping 'universe.' User AboutMovies seems to be primarily concerned with Oregon-related articles, and hence has little/no experience or interest in 'supercentenarians'. However, when he tagged the Mary Ramsey Wood article with the Category:supercentenarians tag, that pushed the article into the domain of another field. Making unproven/generally unacceptable assertions on the basis of 99-year-old local journalism does not constitute a complete picture for the Wikipedia reader. It would be akin to copying a story about UFO's and writing an article on the Roswell aliens as if such a thing were proven. In other words, the article must take a dispassionate, neutral point of view which asserts that some believed that this woman was '120' but which states that recent evidence suggests that she was, in fact, a mere '97' years old. Removing citations and then adding 'uncited' is not a fair way to resolve this issue. This would be like a passenger in a car saying they didn't have a traffic ticket because "I tore it up and threw it away." Sure, after you delete the citation, that leaves material uncited.

After all is said and done, it does appear this issue was finally dying down, and a general consensus was reached. However, it does appear that there is still a lack of agreement regarding the relative importance of the age issue. I note, for example, that part of what made this woman 'notable' was not just her final age but the assertion that she rode on horseback at age '66'. However, if 24 years younger, then she would have been only 42, and thus her 'feat' is much less notable. We need to remember that at the time these stories were written, tall tales (such as Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill) were popular. Claiming that an aged local rode the Oregon trail at age '66' fits that mold.

Another issue, however, involves assertions of 'original research' when in fact, an expert on the subject knows that issues such as 'namesaking' (a son taking the name of his father, pretending to be him or others confusing the two) or exaggerated claims tending to run in families ('her mother lived to be 110') tend to run in families, or the idea of 'age heaping' (ages tend to be rounded off to the nearest whole number...thus age '100' instead of '99' or even '120' instead of '119') are NOT original research, and can be found in writings that go back more than a century...in fact, predating this claim.

For examples:

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/04.htm

Word Spy - age heapingage heaping (AYJ hee.ping) pp. In a survey result, the clumping of respondents' ages on certain values, particularly those ending in 0 and 5. ... www.wordspy.com/words/ageheaping.asp - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

Analysis Ch2 ex9 Age Heaping ExampleRun a frequency to see the age heaping in the Bangladesh data set by doing the following:. 1. Open SPSS data base bdeshage.sav. 2. In the Data Editor, ... www.tulane.edu/~panda2/Analysis2/datclean/age_heaping.html - 5k - Cached - Similar pages

Chapter 5. ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF DSS DATA: International ...Thus, the shape of the pyramid helps to reveal irregularities, such as age shifting and age heaping, in the age–sex structure of the population. ... www.idrc.ca/en/ev-42997-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2855

Reputed centenarians in this country whose ages exceed a hundred by more than three or four years have no documentary or satisfactory evidence to offer. The oldest, of whose age there is little room for doubt, though the documentary proof is not complete, was Mrs. Emily Robins Talcott, of the age of 105 years and 4 months.

Please note that the above source, written in 1898, notes a correlation between documentation and age claims, and makes some ironic statements that would take quite some time to explain. For example, we do know that the age claimed in a census document is not always correct. However, like a rock thrown in a pond, the waves created as they radiate from the epicenter tend to become more distorted the further from the actual impact event they get. Conversely, the closer the ripples are to the center, the greater chance that they approximate the actual impact.

In the case of Mary Ramsey Wood, her age at any point much be viewed in the total context in which it was written. Most age exaggerations happen either because someone loses track of how old they are, of a person's great age becomes a source of local pride, and this leads to an even greater age claimed than reality. However, because documents written decades before the birth event are much closer to the beginning of life, and no one when aged '14' for example thinks that one day they would be '120' years old, checking for early-life documents is generally considered to be a reliable methodology, with late-life documents subject to a greater degree of skepticism unless corroborated by backup evidence.

In the Mary Wood case, so far very little documentation has been produced; the 1880 census being the most reliable. A possible 1860 census match (correct town, wrong age) could be attributed to the fact that women aged 30-60 often tend to 'undercount' their age...being young a source of vanity. It is only when a person becomes so old that it is no longer possible to claim to be young, that the result is reversed and claiming to be older than one really is becomes the vogue. Thus, we see Mary Wood aged '30' in 1860 (too young), '69' in 1880 (just right, given the daughter's age of '44') and '120' in 1908 (too old; 97 seems far more likely).

If anything in this case, there was a failure of communication, a certain bit of impetuosity involved. An 'expert' in Oregon wouldn't want to hear what an outside source has had to say. However, given that such an article crossed into the realm of asserting extreme longevity, and the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to present the best information available from a neutral viewpoint, it is necessary to ensure that both sides of the case are presented and that the reader can decide whom to believe. However, I already believe that such a position is a compromise. Claims to '1787' are based on hearsay printed in the news; the claim to '97' is based on documented evidence. One would expect that, if the story were true, at least one or two census matches between 1790 and 1900 (11 chances to be counted) would find an age that would support the claim to '1787'. Clearly, this is not the case. The burden of proof must be upon the claimant (if I claim to be the greatest boxer that ever lived, I'd better back it up in the ring). Sure, the tombstone states '1787'...but this would have been made around the time of her death, not the time of her birth, and thus only proves that it was claimed this woman was '120' at the time, not that she actually was. Stating that locals in Oregon believed this woman to be '120' and this led her being named the 'Queen Mother of Oregon' seems like a fair compromise. However, given that this woman's only claim to fame was her age and that that age is disputed at best, not true at worst, it seems that the mention of the age controversy needs to be at least mentioned in the intro and at the end (leaving the center for the hypothetical claim/bio about her).

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 05:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Trusilver, I was a little surprised to read the above comments from 'Aboutmovies.' Clearly, this person still has issues and these issues need to be resolved. They include:
A. Use of 'reliable' sources: claiming that a 1908 local newspaper article, which explains in detail that no documentary evidence is available to prove this woman's age but that we should believe it because locals said so, is clearly out of line. There is a relative degree of reliability that varies: a scientfic journal citation is more valid than a newspaper article; among newspaper articles, something from the New York Times is considered more likely to be true than something from a local newspaper. Also, let's remember the yellow journalism controversies of Hearst and Co. in the time period...newspapers were often given to sensational stories. If I find an article in a century-old newspaper that claims that aliens exist, should we then say "we must accept this as fact unless we can disprove it." No, it is generally agreed by the majority that aliens are not proven to exist and that sitings, if any, must be written from a hypothetical standpoint...not starting from an 'it's true' position and then following with a teleological argument.
In addition to her age, I find a problem with the following assertion:
User:Ryoung122 is introducing original research by "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" if that information is used.
If need be, I can 'synthesize' material elsewhere and then reference it back to here. The fact of the matter is, every article on Wikipedia involves a certain amount of 'synthesis.' That's what writing is. The Wiki policy was devised to leave out 'original-idea' assertions, not assertions previously made time and again. Sourcing is generally used when a statement made is controversial or might be contested by some.
Finally, while it seems like too big a deal is being made here, the fact of the matter is...do any checking and you won't find a single source today that asserts that Mary Ramsey Wood's age of '120' is accepted by any mainstream publication.Ryoung122 05:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm not party to this mediation, so I hope nobody is offended if I chime in. But I have to take issue with Robert Young's claim that "the entire reason for this person being 'notable' on Wikipedia is her alleged age of '120'." The following sentence (taken from the article), in my view, establishes her notability for the purposes of inclusion on WP beyond any reasonable doubt:
In 1907 Wood was crowned as the “Queen Mother” of Oregon by former Oregon Governor George H. Williams and the president of the Oregon Pioneer Association Mr. J. D. Lee.
Now, it's entirely possible that the 1907 crowning was based on false information, or political skulduggery. But if the crowning happened, it makes her notable. Perhaps she's notable for being 120 years old; perhaps she's notable for being the subject of a massive fraud. Either way, she's notable; either way, there's a story to be told.
I also want to say that, apart from the "original research" considerations and whether or not the present discussion impacts the Wikipedia article, Robert Young's contribution to the study of Oregon history seems valuable to me. If the result of this discussion is that his research is not acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia, I hope he does not take that as an indication that his work is not valued. I am personally impressed by anyone that shows this level of dedication to discovering the underlying truth behind received wisdom, even though some approaches to that sort of project are not acceptable in an encyclopedia.
-Pete 10:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading through this, I am greatly inclined to believe Ryoung's idea that the subject is an untrue yet fascinating little folk myth. I am less inclined to believe that he has, in fact, synthesized new information based off of published material to advance his position. I can find no place where he has used information out of context to try to push a position that isn't already present through alternative sources. I never thought I would be in a position before where I would be unsure of a yahoo group's suitability as a source, but this case is it. But at this point I don't think the source is needed to get where we are trying to go. So this is mostly irrelevant.

As far as the notability of the subject goes, while everyone seems to disagree with exactly what it is that makes her notable, I have heard nobody suggest that she is not notable. Personally, just the interesting grave stone that declares her age at death would be enough for me to support notability. So this too is mostly irrelevant.

What is not irrelevant is tone and NPOV. It's possible to state the claim plainly without passing a judgment on fact. I mean, we make mention of Methuselah's claim to be the oldest person in history despite the fact that he's mentioned in a single source which cannot be verified as fact. But let us remember that fact and verifiable content are two different things and Wikipedia relies on the latter.


At this point, I feel that the draft here is a good start. It is NPOV and unlike the current revision it does not put undue weight to unverifiable content in the leading paragraph.

I would like to hear support or oppose statements on this revisions as well as what changes would need to be made to it to reach consensus. and remember that we are trying to reach a compromise on the situation. Trusilver 15:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Support my draft, obviously, but I welcome suggestions for improvement. Comment: I agree that the controversy about using the Yahoo group as a source is now largely irrelevent since I found an alternate, free, accessible source for the 1880 census info (as cited in the draft). Katr67 16:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: It makes it clear that the age is doubtful, but without dominating the article. It also is not delving into original research. Aboutmovies 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I have a few suggestions, which I'll note on the draft's talk page; but in general, I think this rewrite represents a very balanced presentation of all significant issues. <deleted my own irrelevant comments> -Pete 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • <Deleted my comments pertaining to Pete's> I'll be looking for your suggestions. Katr67 17:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, please. This informal mediation is to reach a compromise on this article only. Aside from his knowledge of the situation and credentials as they pertain to this subject, Robert Young's own article is irrelevant to this discussion. Trusilver 17:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Mostly support. I believe that Katr67's 'example' draft is a mostly-fair compromise, and personally I don't see what the remaining deal is. The facts of the matter are, it seems that this woman's alleged age was enough to gain attention of the governor at the time (even though it now appears to be little more than local boosterism). I personally could cite many examples of false/exaggerated claims supported by U.S. governors (for whom sending birthday letters to ' centenarians' is akin to kissing babies). Moreover, if one wanted to bother, the NY Times Index lists news articles on 'longevity' that appeared. Check out any volume...1911, 1973, it does not matter...and you'll find plenty of examples from around the U.S. and the globe. However, I agree simply linking to 'longevity claims', 'longevity myths' and myself is enough to give the reader more information. While the primary focus should be on the "Queen Mother" of Oregon moniker, we should remember that she gets the benefit of the doubt, being not simply very old but also a woman. For example, Walter Williams (soldier) claimed to be the 'last Confederate veteran' before his age claim was debunked by a NY Times reporter in 1959. (Not noted in THAT article, but more information: Mr. Williams did not even claim to be a Confederate soldier until he applied for a 'Confederate pension' in 1934 (during the depression) and changed his age several times, including 1846 and finally 1842). Everyone from the president of the U.S. on down rallied to Walter William's defense against an 'attack' from a 'Yankee reporter'. However, years later his named was quietly removed from the U.S. Dept of Veteran Affair's list of the 'last Confederate veteran.' When emotions calmed, people realized that he was 'only' 105, not 117, and neither was there any evidence that he served. Debunking his age diminished but did not remove his notability. This story is a similar event; to Oregon it may appear unique but these claims have occurred over and over and over again. The claim of the family Bible was 'destroyed in a fire' (and later evidence suggesting the claim is false) is very, very common (for example, Susie Brunson claimed 123 in 1994, yet her social security record listed her as 105 at death). The fact of the matter is, everything in this case fits previously set and recognized patterns that have been reported in material dating to the 1870's (beginning with "Human Longevity: Its Facts and Fictions" by William Thoms. However most of the material is still not online--this particular book was published in 1879). I would like to remind everyone that the Wiki policy for 'verifiability' allows the use of self-published material when it comes from a recognized expert. I think it is about time to move on and end this discussion, unless future controversy flares up.Ryoung122 09:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that we have reached a consensus, I have changed the article to the proposed draft and unless there are other issues, I'm going to close this mediation case. Thank you all for working together so well, and have a great week. Trusilver 21:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Found a source for the census data

Thanks to the LDS church and their fine website, familysearch.org:

Here's the Mary Wood in Hillsboro listing.

Katr67 17:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about original research

It's not original research if a reasonable non-expert can follow the reasoning.--Michael C. Price talk 17:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Where in Wikipedia guidelines/policies is that located? Aboutmovies 17:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I was thinkiing of where WP:OR says An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, so we are allowed to state what the census records contain -- and what they don't contain. --Michael C. Price talk 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you think I could move this discussion out of the middle of our attempt at mediation? Katr67 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Moving it works for me. Price I think we are in agreement then, as you may have noticed where I wrote: "it only shows what it shows" regarding the census. Aboutmovies 18:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
See also from WP:OR: "For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." My emphasis in bold. --Michael C. Price talk 11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about improvements to current version of article

Moved from temp page discussion

Discussion of draft

Since this draft already IS a "talk page," I'm putting comments here in the bottom.

I would like to remove the disclaimers at the beginning of the first two sections. I would prefer to see the information inlined in the text, maybe as follows:

"According to two 1908 obituaries (whose accuracy is uncertain), Mary Ramsey was born..."

and

"Also according to contemporary obituaries, Mary (now surnamed Lemons) moved to the Oregon Territory in 1852 with her youngest daughter, Catherine."

In general, I don't like the "According to…" phrase either, but in this case - where the quality of the source is demonstrably questionable - I think it's the best approach.

-Pete 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pete. I like this approach, but don't we have to qualify every stated date with a similar "according to" phrase? That's probably better than a blanket disclaimer, but then it seems like the whole thing will be unnecessarily wordy and probably quite weasel-y as well... Katr67 17:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point. How about this, then:
"Two 1908 obituaries - the likely inaccuracy of which is discussed below - relate the following account of Mary Ramsey's life:"
Maybe combine the two sections into one, to make it really clear that the disclaimer covers the entire section. I guess the point is this: I much prefer a PROSE disclaimer to some kind of formatting novelty. As you can see I'm not at all tied to one way of phrasing it, just throwing ideas out there to see if something sticks! -Pete 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem I see with your disclaimer is that a new reader would be confused - "why does the article base itself on an inaccurate premise?" The fact that the inaccurate date is taken as fact by both her obituaries needs to be included in the disclaimer somehow. -Pete 18:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
All that makes a great deal of sense. I'll see about updating the draft later on today, probably on a separate temp page as the straw poll is for this version. Katr67 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of one word, I like the page the way it is. If you watch a fiction movie on a movie screen, the viewer needs to employ 'suspension of disbelief' to enjoy it. I agree making every other word 'claimed to be' etc a bit tedious. Adding a disclaimer at the beginning of the heading that the version of events recounted are as they were reported in 1908 based on the information available at the time but may not reflect current evidence regarding her age may be sufficient. If we relate the story of Methuselah, we need not say that 'Noah, his son, didn't really live 500 years'...the reader would know that. The problem with this case is it is on the cusp of believability (some people may be inclined to believe it, but the odds are still about 10 billion to 1, and 99 years later, with much-improved health care, no proven person on Earth right now is older than 114 years old. I do realize that Katr67 offered a 'compromise' version...but if we go back and re-edit it again to make it more favorable to one side, then this issue (which has simmered down) could erupt again. Let's not start again.Ryoung122 04:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

RYoung, I have a great deal of experience collaborating peacefully with both Katr67 and AboutMovies. Both are dedicated editors who have demonstrated time and again that they are more interested in contributing to an accurate and useful encyclopedia, than in advancing an agenda or their own egos. You, as well, appear to be a reasonable person who has a great deal of knowledge and scholarship to bring to the table. What exactly are the "sides" you refer to above? What is this potential "eruption?" I understand that there was a period of misunderstanding, but to me it looks like we've moved past that. Is there something yet unresolved? (And what is the "one word" you don't like?)
I don't think that asserting that the article is perfect as-is, merely to avoid debate, jives with the goal of creating the best encyclopedia on the planet. -Pete 05:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm through contributing to this article. Happy editing. Katr67 13:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all 'finished' with this article. The result is mostly a compromise. I'd prefer to categorize this article as a longevity myth because not only is her age unverified, there is evidence to suggest it is untrue. However, the term 'myth' is not as strong as 'lie.' Often, the locals and/or family really believe a story at the time, mostly because they are motivated by pride...either localist, religious, nationalistic, ethnic, or familial. Hence, the term 'myth' refers not to the case simply being not true; it refers to a sociological phenomenon. This case is like all myths...stories that are scientificaly untrue but are often popularly believed.
By the way, here's a very similar situation:
Noah Raby.
Perhaps a little less beloved and less believable; the evidence against him suggests he was only 81. I started this article in response to a posting someone made on the longevity claims article. Like Mary Wood, this case was well-known a century ago, and recent interest in genealogy, 'Find-a-Grave' and the internet has brought it to the surface.Ryoung122 07:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
RYoung, you seem determined to argue against locals who insist that their local "oldest person" was really the "oldest person." There's only one problem: such a local has not emerged. You continue to assert that there is an argument, or that there are "sides," or that the resolution reached is some sort of "compromise"; but I don't see it. There is nobody asserting that Mary was truly and undeniably 120 years old. Never has been.
In my view, the present state of the article is a significant improvement over previous versions, and that's something we can all take a little pride in. I don't see it as a "compromise" between competing "positions" at all; rather, it lays out the facts in a way that lets the reader understand the context of various assertions about Mary's life.
I also believe the article still has room for improvement, most notably in the areas I've mentioned. You may think we're all "done" here, but since you don't own the article, that opinion and a buck are worth a cup of coffee. You can help me, and anyone else who comes along, improve it; or you can create drama if you prefer. I hope you choose the former, but ultimately it's up to you. -Pete 07:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply NOT going to accept any sentence that says something such as 'Mary Wood was born in 1787' or 'Mary Wood died at 120' without a disclaimer. Unless, of course, you produce the birth certificate or family Bible entry from 1787.Ryoung122 01:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RYoung, you just reverted five separate edits, by different editors, which contained numerous improvements to the article. You apparently did this in order to change a single sentence. I understand your concern about that sentence, and am willing to concede that my change on that sentence may not have been the best approach. But please, try to be a little more measured in your editing. -Pete 01:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

1900 Census

  • The article says there was no matches for the 1900 census. I used HeritageQuest and found Mary Wood born May 1809, age 91, widowed, mother of 4 children, 1 child living, born Tennesse, parents born England. She is living with daughter, Catherine Reynolds (father born PA, mother born TN). They are living in S Hillsboro Pct, Washington County, Oregon. Anyone come across this? -AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 21:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating. Any chance you can scan and upload? -Pete 22:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Great job, AMK! This basically connects all the circumstantial evidences (already a strong case that this is false). Note that 1908-1809-1=98 years old. This basically shows that as recently as 1900, Mary Wood's family thought she was born in 1809...so how did they get her from '91' to '120' less than 8 years later?Ryoung122 05:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I was able to verify this using www.ancestry.com:

1900 United States Federal Census about Catherine B Reynolds Name: Catherine B Reynolds Home in 1900: Hillsboro, Washington, Oregon Age: 67 Estimated birth year: abt 1833 Birthplace: Tennessee Relationship to head-of-house: Head Mother's name: Mary Race: White Occupation: View image Neighbors: View others on page Household Members: Name Age Catherine B Reynolds 67 Mary Wood 91

Source Citation: Year: 1900; Census Place: Hillsboro, Washington, Oregon; Roll: T623 1353; Page: 5B; Enumeration District: 157.

I don't know why it wasn't found earlier, but the bottom lines are:

  1. the case is false
  2. teamwork is better than the efforts of one person
  3. we see a lot of cases where the age claimed jumps significantly when a person passes away. Here, this woman was represented as '91' years old in June 1900, but by Jan 1908 had died at '120.' We also see this in cases such as Micajah Wise...100 years old in 1910, '114' in 1914...Ryoung122 05:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm glad to see that teamwork has won out over that nasty argument a month or so ago. Thanks for posting all the details. -Pete 09:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Repetition of Error Does Not make the truth

This article remains 'localist' in perspective, not notable outside Oregon. If you continue to respect the greater world perspective that does not view this woman as really 120, then it would be helpful for everyone involved. If you'd like information on Oregon's REAL supercentenarians, please contact me.Ryoung122 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


The Oregon state record is:

  • Oregon Geneva McNicholl W F December 10, 1889 January 22, 2002 112 years 43 days

Martha Brady also made it to 111. Currently, Oregon's oldest resident is Helen Johnson, 111.Ryoung122 20:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

If you feel the subject of the article is not notable, please take it to Afd. Like Pete said, we can see what the rest of the Wikipedia has to say about it. I am not saying that this woman was 120 years old when she died, I am saying other people thought she was 120 years old when she died. I am not "repeating an error in order to make it the truth", I am mentioning that she made national news at the time of her death. It is quite clear in the article that her age is disputed. It's also quite interesting that until you came along, nobody questioned the myth, and as recently as 2005, civic leaders of a major Oregon city thought she was notable for something that was in fact, most likely a fraud. I was thinking you ought to write the city of Hillsboro and let them know that they might want to rethink memorializing Wood. Like I mentioned above, your getting in touch with an Oregonian reporter and having them break this story would be a fabulous way to get your point across (and would even provide a reliable source that could be used in an article about yourself.) The postcard I found shows it was sold "for her benefit". What an interesting story there must behind all this. Hopefully a local historian can get to the bottom of the matter one of these days. In the meantime, your tedious insistence that there is some kind of "pro 120 years" faction is getting really old, and attempting to browbeat various Wikipedians into thinking this isn't meeting with much success. Please reread the article carefully. If there is any place in it where it seems to be saying that Wood was indeed, irrefutably, no question, 120 years old when she died, please point it out and I will be glad to change it. In a nutshell: I AGREE WITH YOU THAT SHE WAS LYING. I hope that was clear. Let me know if you need any more assistance in understanding my point of view. Thanks. Katr67 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
If you think the other oldest people in Oregon need articles, feel free free to write them and I will gladly copyedit them. This talk page is about Mary Ramsey Wood's article. Katr67 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)