Talk:Susannah Mushatt Jones

Previous Article

I never saw the previous article that was deleted, but after doing a Google search on Susannah Mushatt Jones, I discovered that she was notable having received tribute for a long life from both the US House of Representatives and the Alabama House of representatives. So, I wrote a new article.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies

There is currently a discussion about what constitutes encyclopedia content on longevity related biographies at Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies please comment. I am One of Many (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

1800s/nineteenth century

I've changed this back to "19th century". 1800s may be used by journalists who struggle to remember whether to add or subtract one but "nineteenth century" is the normal way of referring to that century. Given that in a few years we will have to talk about the last surviving people born in the 1900s, meaning the first decade of the twentieth century, we're creating an unnecessary and confusing inconsistency if we start using this non-standard dating convention. WP:CENTURY speaks of avoiding ambiguity and WP:MOS speaks of avoiding contested terms, which this one certainly is. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

And this too from the main WP:MOS "Avoid forms such as the 1700s that could refer to 10 or 100 years"... --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

But according to List of oldest living people, there are five people born in the 19th century (in 1900). It is now unclear whether the statement means the other three are unverified, or if it is not counting 1900 as part of the 19th century. (There is a similar statement in the article for Emma Morano.)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So all of you considered it so impossible for someone born the year after this lady to be alive that you didn't bother to check? Three living people were born in 1900. You can't interchange 19th century and 1800s. There is no confusion with the decade, everyone knows that someone born 1809 can't be alive now (the middle of Napoleon's reign, and almost 206 years ago) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. SMW, yes of course I'm aware that that would make someone over 200 years old (see my original edit summary) and no I didn't think it vanishingly unlikely that there are people alive who are slightly younger than the two oldest people alive. I take the point about those born in the year 1900. It's always struck me as a rather pedantic argument that only became popular in the late 90s and I doubt any of those people would consider that they were born in the nineteenth century but I suppose my edit was strictly incorrect. The fact remains though that, to many readers, to speak of people being born in the 1800s is a fairly clear statement that they were born at the beginning of the nineteenth century and MOS does recommend that we avoid speaking of centuries in this way. Would you settle for "born before 1900"? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 09:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If the statement "born before 1900" were to be added then a citation stating (exactly) that would be needed, not the one stating "born in the 1800s". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Deducing that someone "born in the 1800s" was born before 1900 is either a simple calculation or a paraphrase and not original research. There's no need to find the exact wording. A search on Google News doesn't bring up anything very recent but there are stories like this [1] from a few months ago when there were three people before 1900 that use the exact phrase. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 09:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If it 's that simple then surely it's just as simple to conclude that 1800s refers to the period 1800-1899 not 1800-1809. You can't reinterpret a citation because its intent does not agree with the Wiki interpretation. If there's no appropriate citation then wait until there is. The old citation (when there were 3) could be used if it was also pointed out that 1 has since died. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A source like this [2] that that names the oldest people in the world in order would seem to do the job. I don't really think I can be "reinterpreting" something when the meaning is perfectly clear and accepted by everyone. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 11:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think DerbyCounty accidentally hit on a solution. Instead of saying "the 1800s", why not say "1800-99"?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I can live with this but it seems a bit clumsy. What we have now, with the information missing, seems like the worst possible situation. I still don't think it has been properly explained what is wrong with "Before 1900". I understand DerbyCounty feels I'm contradicting myself a bit but in terms of actual Wikipedia policy, it's not original research and I can't think of any other objection. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 06:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

My preferred solution is to return the original wording and add a footnote explaining that while 1800s may refer to the decade, in this case it (clearly) refers to the period 1800-1899. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Both suggestions are very cumbersome and it still hasn't been explained adequately why an exact statement is needed for "born before 1900" when that is not actually the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)