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)

It's not really that important how exactly it is worded. I think that perhaps the clearest statement that also likely to be of the most interest to readers is "born before 1900". --I am One of Many (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The nineteenth century ends December 31, 1900. The 20th century begins January 1, 1901 and ends December 31,2000 the 21st century begins January 1, 2001 and ends December 31, 2000.

You probably mean the 21st century begins January 1, 2001 and ends December 31, 2100. Gap9551 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources all comment on how she eats bacon every day

There is dispute between myself and one editor on whether or not the article should contain mention of what many reliable sources have thought notable enough to write news articles about, and even use in the title of those news articles. [3] If she gets coverage for eating bacon every day, that an important part of her diet, and plenty of news coverage for that, I believe it should be in there. For biographical articles, it is common to list information like this. There was never any consensus not to include things like this. There was a discussion on another talk page for someone else who lived over a hundred years, where a few people commented about content there, and the closure of that discussion saying there was no consensus on what material to trim. [4] Those in the discussion did say details about their health and diet should be mentioned though. We have a section called "Health, diet and lifestyle" in the article. Diet would include her eating bacon every day, obviously. Dream Focus 11:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a consensus that only material relating to longevity be included in biographies of person known only for their longevity. The link is included above, Talk:Susannah Mushatt Jones#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies. There is nothing in the article you cited that is appropriate encyclopedic content. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I already commented on that discussion. A small number of people said some trivia should be cut from that article, and the closer said "However, that consensus does not specifically identify what material should be trimmed. As a result, closer is not editing or abridging the article.". People do state that "diet" should be included in the article though. Her diet was bacon. Google News search for "susannah mushatt jones" "bacon" shows "About 9,320 results " [5]. Thousands of news organization do mention that was something she ate every day. It is therefore notable enough to be in her article. I'd like other people to give their opinions on this as well. Dream Focus 17:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think including that she eats bacon is problematic given there is a source on the topic itself. It is perhaps an unusual feature of her diet that Wikipedia readers would find interesting. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise?

"Jones has never smoked, consumed alcohol, partied, worn makeup, or dyed her hair.[source] She sleeps about ten hours a day[source] and eats bacon every day.[source] She attributes not being married long for her longevity."[source]

--I am One of Many (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to "compromise". The wording you use sounds better though, so I edited it to use that. Dream Focus 21:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I repeat: there is nothing in the citation given which suggests that eating bacon has any relationship to her longevity, it is therefore irrelevant for this article. The citation also mentions scrambled eggs, meat, veggies and potatoes, none of which have been included in the article. So who's pushing this, the National Bacon Association or the Bacon Diet lobby? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If you read the current version of the article it says:

For breakfast she always eats four strips of bacon along with scrambled eggs and grits. She also eats bacon throughout the day.

No one is saying it helps her live that long, only that she eats it every day, so obviously it can't be as bad as some people claim. And its in the article because its something that gets plenty of coverage in reliable sources, not because you personally believe everything should have something to do with someone's longevity. That's not how biography articles work. If reliable sources believe its important enough to mention, that's what we go by, not your personal whims. Dream Focus 03:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"No one is saying it helps her live that long [...]" The article [6] does: "Want to live to 116? Eat bacon every day". It claims a causal relation in its title, and wikipedia readers can see the title when they follow the reference. This is clearly an irresponsible journalist who is not quoting a doctor or medical scientist, but is trying to attract readers. In my opinion, that makes the article, or at least part of it, unreliable. The daily bacon eating is probably reliable though, and I agree we have to go by reliable sources and what readers may find useful information. Gap9551 (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the fact that she ate bacon every day does not prove that bacon "isn't as bad as some people claim". You need a larger sample to draw such conclusions combined with solid statistical analysis. And certainly does it not prove that bacon contributes to her having reached such an old age. There is a strong selection effect in play here (Survivorship bias). Many very old people may honestly think a certain lifestyle contributed to their age while often it is plain luck and good genes. Gap9551 (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• What Gap9551 said, except that we wouldn't be including the bacon because "readers may find [it] useful", and also not, as DF says, because "If reliable sources believe its important enough to mention, that's what we go by" -- articles absolutely do not include everything that happens to be in reliable sources, or they'd be completely unreadable. We might include it, rather because very brief "lifestyle" detail is de rigueur for an article (in any medium) about a very, very old person, so people expect just a touch of it.

But it needs to be (I say again) very brief, and should add some distance ("according to..." or "reportedly...") to reflect the obvious fact that no one really e.g. eats exactly the same thing every single day. The use of the word partied, which to my knowledge is insufficiently well-defined to allow it to be used in a WP article, makes it very clear that this is not completely sober reporting of verified facts -- who can know for sure that this old gal didn't have a wee nip sometime in the 1930s?

According to [the subject/her family/caregivers/whomever], Jones has never smoked, consumed alcohol, "partied", worn makeup, or dyed her hair. She sleeps about ten hours a night and naps throughout the day. Her breakfast is said to be bacon, scrambled eggs and grits.

The bacon later in the day is just too trivial. And BTW the bacon does mean that "obviously it can't be as bad as some people claim" -- as Gap points out, an individual case proves nothing. EEng (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "partied" should definitely be removed because it is so vague that is has no meaning at all here, without context. Did she never attend a birthday party in her life? Or did she never go somewhere with friends to dance to music? Something else? Gap9551 (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

References

• Longevity is caused by a combination of genes and lifestyle. We do not yet understand the exact effect of inidividual genes or foods consumed but we are actively trying to work them out. To do this we need information. Just because we do not yet know what the exact effect of something is doesn't mean the information isn't relevant. An article about someone with an unusually long life is more useful the more information it contains. If one of them eats bacon then it should be documented in case it helps future research into longevity. Sliven2000 (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Researchers working out why some people live a long time are not getting their data from Wikipedia. At least, I hope they're not. EEng (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• I replaced the reference with the sensational title "Want to live to 116? Eat bacon every day" by another reference (this edit: [7]). I think we shouldn't reproduce such claims on WP even if it's only in the list of references. I hope everyone is ok with this since I didn't change the content of the article. Gap9551 (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In this case it's OK, but for the record we wouldn't omit a fact just to keep a jokey headline out of the ref list. But I repeat, I think the all-day bacon factoid is just too trivial to include. EEng (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't have removed the fact or the old reference if I hadn't been able to find a similar reference. And I also don't like the fact being listed, but at least it won't do much harm either. Gap9551 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• This may sound stupid but just have a RFC on whether to include that sentence or not. Let people propose alternatives but in the end, it'll basically be a vote anyways and it could use some outside views. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)