Talk:Besse Cooper

Became oldest living Georgian

She couldn't have become the "oldest living Georgian" in 2007 if someone else was older:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-21-beatrice-farve_N.htm

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2008/03/27/met_192432.shtml

Duh.Ryoung122 01:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Duh" indeed. There's certainly a ref that says she was...how about using a little WP:AGF? Ref says she was...your edit said she wasn't with no competing citation...what's an editor to do?  Frank  |  talk  02:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert knows what hes doing, hes the one who studies them and therefore has all the information. 65.0.30.118 (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any disagreement on that point. Alas, that's not how Wikipedia works.  Frank  |  talk  12:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We should still let the gerontologists do their job, they know what their doing. 67.33.127.117 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course; nobody is stopping them from doing their jobs. But we still have policies here, which we still must follow.  Frank  |  talk  03:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Incumbent

If there's anything in the wikipedia or wiktionary entries for "Incumbent" that suggests the use of that word in a succession box about longevity, it's exceedingly well-hidden. This is all of a piece with the deeply unencyclopedic view that old age is a contest, whose "winners," "record-holders," and "record-breakers" are inherently notable. David in DC (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Incumbent" shares its root with "encumber," offering the sense that an incumbent encumbers other aspiring office holders from holding a given office by occupying it. If used conversationally, referring to the "incumbent" oldest living Georgian (for example) most literate Americans would understand the phrase, and not argue the usage. If there is a guideline indicating that all syntax must be endorsed in the wiki, it's equally well-hidden.

Every one of us endeavors to live another day; the party who has done so for the longest period of time is therefore a person of note, though not in the traditionally "encyclopedic" sense; the Wiki, though often drawing its guidelines around the traditionally "encyclopedic" standards and norms, cannot and will not ever be a traditional encyclopedia.

I have missed where anyone has named any "winners," "record-holders," or "record-breakers" among those who gained notice (in reliable sources like newspapers and magazines) for their longevity. 67.236.29.150 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Washington Post article

The article which is the first ref on the page no longer seems to be on Washington Post site. Other news sites have post posted it though I note with the Washington Post byline or it's possibly archived somewhere, if someone wants to fix it appropriately. It is "Japan’s oldest person, 115-year-old Chiyono Hasegawa, dies". Washington Post, December 2, 2011.Number36 (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please conform to encyclopedic standards

Encyclopedic standards should write about a topic, even if relatively recent, as if it is not a current event, but as an encyclopedia entry. It therefore follows that writing about Ms. Cooper becoming the last verified person left from 1896 on December 2, 2011 is more encyclopedic (the date will always be the same, unless a surprise case emerges) than stating that she "is" the last person left from 1896. No need to write in the present tense.69.15.219.71 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fanboy fluff

In what universe is making the top 15 of anything a "Milestone"? No-one makes Top-15 lists of anything. Such lists are usually an order of magnitude (10, 100) and occasionally double/half of that (5, 20, 50). There is no justification for including this sort of non-notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In the very small world of supercentenarians, any move up the ladder is significant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Any move? Then where's the entry for her moving up to 14th on the list a few days ago? -- Foetusized (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's waiting to be posted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

15 is within 20, 50, or 100 (your numbers), numbers of galaxies & stars exceed 6 billion, small comparison set; likely to be noted regardless of highest position, could break into top 10 in 4 months. Dru of Id (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at WP:ANI, where the first respondent noted that Derby has misused tyhe rollback feature, along with the absurdity of using the term "fanboy". I don't think this article's subject is a rock star or a professional athlete. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Derby - making the assertion that "no-one makes top-15 lists of anything" is, at best, hard to prove, since it's a negative. At the risk of getting off the point, here are three queries, each with multiple hits for such lists. The real point, however, is that there isn't consensus for the removal you have made repeatedly, and since the edit isn't against any policy I know of, I think your best bet is to find consensus on wording you can live with rather than edit-warring (or worse). I don't think this belongs at ANI - and said so there; hopefully we can resolve this here.  Frank  |  talk  13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite right, it is impossible to prove a negative. On the other hand it is entirely possible to prove a positive, in thsi case that making the Top 15 is notable. So, is there any citation for a Top 15 list of oldest people? Is there even a mention anywhere in a "WP:RS that "Besse Cooper is now "one of the top 15 oldest people"? Because if there isn't then it can hardly be considered notable, more a case of fanboy fluff by playing with numbers. Is there even anywhere in wikipedia that has a top 15 list of anything with the scope of oldest people (subjective, one-off/annual lists of musicians/actors can hardly be compared to an objective all-time list!)? And what about the other milestones? Did making the Top 20, a far more legitimate figue for a to plist, become redundant when she made the "Top 15"? Milestones don't cease to be milestones when another milestone is reached. The fact is that making the top 15 is NOT a milestone at all. Being the 15th oldest verified person is notable, and could/should be mentioned in the lead. Making the Top 10 would (hopefully will) be a milestone and there are even two bites at that cherry because there is a Top 10 undisputed and a Top 10 verified and the reason these can be considered milestones while Top 15 cannot is that top 10 lists are common and even wiki has a top 10 list of Oldest people. Claiming that top 15 is notable is just a case of a few editors with an insufficent grasp of notablilty saying "Ooh, look, Besse Cooper's moved form 16th to 15th (and then 14th and back to 15th again) on the list, I think that's notable so I'll add it as a milestone". That's not notable, that's WP:OR. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a top 100 list, and she's 15th on it. What's with this "fanboy" stuff? This is not a rock star or a professional athlete we're talking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've misconstrued you DerbyCountyinNZ, but your argument, and editing on this, appear to lack perspective about the relative importance of this issue. Secondly as you say that being the 15th oldest person in the world is notable then, by your own argument, it is a milestone, i.e. as defined in this context, an important, notable, or significant event.Number36 (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You have misconstrued. Being the 15th oldest person is not the same as becoming one of the 15 oldest people. The latter implies that 15th or more significant than 14th or 16th or any other more number between 10 and 20. Being 15th is significant enough to mention it in the lede, becoming 15th is NOT significant, there being a continuing failure of any to produce any evidence to suggest that it is. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What's your evidence for the "fanboy" comment? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well then I'm sorry again Derby, but I didn't misconstrue, your editing does display a lack of perspective on the importance of this point. Secondly, your argument here doesn't work, if it's significant that she is the 15th oldest, then it is significant that she became the 15th oldest. They're simply two ways of stating the same fact.Number36 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No they're not. Being the 15th oldest is insignificantly more notable than being the 14th or 16th, or in fact any position between 10th and 20th. This information can go in the lede e.g. "Cooper is the 15th oldest" and can change as necessary. Claiming that becoming "one of the 15th oldest" implies that 15 is a significant number, far more significant than being 16th, and that she has made some fanciful list somewhere which only inlcudes the 15 oldest people. There is no such list, therefore becoming one of the 15 oldest is not a milestone! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Yes they are, and 2. It implies no such thing. Becoming one of the 15 oldest people ever works just fine as a milestone, as I explained the definition in this context above. Counting by groupings of five is a very common system, so noting 15th, 10th, 5th, then presumbably 3-2-1, Blastoff, <ahem>... if it comes to that would be perfectly natural. There's nothing wrong whatsoever with noting this on the list, the consensus appears to be that it should stay and there's no substantial reason to actively remove it.Number36 (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If groups of 5 are so important why isn't every other group of 5 included in the milestones??? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant, not a valid argument to remove it from the list, and also isn't what I asserted.Number36 (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If every group of 5 was mentioned on this page, it would clutter up this page terribly with numbers like 95, 90, 85, 80, etc. 15 is added because it is closest to the front of the list. Jay72091 (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, and yet there is a claim above that groups of 5 are impotant. Clearly some are more "important" than others. So is 15 more improtant than 20 (which is not mentioned)? How many top 20 lists are there compared to top 15 lists? The truth is some fanboy decided for no particular reason to chuck in a so-called milestone for no worthwhile reason because that is what fanboys do! Now that the top 10 milestones have been included the top 15 (notice how there is only 1, yet 2 for top 10?) becomes even less of a "milestone". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There you go again with that "fanboy" nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say groups of 5 were 'important', I said it was a common system. Since no one has proposed including every grouping of five that's a straw man of a reductio ad absurdum argument, and totally irrelevant.

Frankly the accusation that someone included this because they were a 'fanboy' is bizarre, we're talking about a supercentenarian here not a superheroNumber36 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made that point before and he's ignored it. I have to figure that he really doesn't know what the term "fanboy" means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The term fanboy" fluff" has been used before in relation to longevity articles, by Robert Young for one. It refers to the addition by enthusiastic amateurs of longevity minutiae and other subjective editing, such as is the case here. Whether all of those that add such material are actually fan"boys" is irrelevant (care factor = 0). It is still an example of subjective rather than objective editing and is hardly constructive. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Methuselah himself used it, it's still a silly, inaccurate, and irrelevant term in the context of this subject and discussion, not to mention the unnecessary potential for offence. The fact of her becoming one of the 15 verified oldest people ever is not subjective, it's an objective fact; the viewpoint that noting it somehow implies something about the number 15 itself, or that it implies other numbers are less important, or that only round numbers are significant, or maybe only tenth, or perhaps third, second, first, whatever, any of that sort of quibbling is fairly subjective though, and certainly constitutes a point of minutiae. Also hardly constructive.Number36 (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it is impossible to prove a negative; rather that it is hard. I bring this point up not to be pedantic, but because the word choice was deliberate, and in a similar vein, I'd also say that it isn't always possible to "prove a positive" as you assert. Surely you've tangled with WP:N enough to know that notability isn't a concrete thing. We wouldn't have much need for WP:AFD or WP:PROD if notability were as clearly defined (and universally agreed!) as you seem to be implying. The key is WP:CONSENSUS, as it has more or less always been around here. It's very hard to argue "that particular sentence doesn't belong in this article because it's not notable" and get community support for removal on that basis. Having said that, I'm not a real fan of trivia lists that get so long as to essentially be summed up as "she's old"; I'm not arguing for the status quo here either. I think we can do better. But on the matter of 15th, it does not appear there is any consensus to remove that at this time.  Frank  |  talk  15:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Vinsamlegast ekki auka the stærð af the ímynd af 200 dílar við 300 punktar. Í samlagning, this er a gagnlegur HTML comment; vinsamlegast, ekki fjarlægja það — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.192.81 (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Birthdate of Sidney Cooper

If one must know, the US Public Records Index lists Sidney Cooper of Monroe, GA as born July 29, 1935.

Name: Sidney B Cooper Birth Date: 29 Jul 1935 Address: Monroe, GA, 30655-1910 (1993)

Save This Record Attach this record to a person in your tree as a source record, or save for later evaluation. Save

Source Information: Ancestry.com. U.S. Public Records Index, Volume 1 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. Original data: Voter Registration Lists, Public Record Filings, Historical Residential Records, and Other Household Database Listings

The only relevance is that we can update the age of Mr. Cooper when/if he makes it to future birthdays.69.15.219.71 (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if he inherited some of his mother's good genes, he could also become a supercentenarian someday! SuperHero2111 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oldest living person in the United States

Is the part where it says she is the oldest person in the united states really necessary? It also says she's the oldest in the world. I think those two go hand in hand. Silenceisgod (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. Obviously, if she's the oldest person in the world, she's the oldest person in the United States. The page must say she's the oldest person in the U.S. in the milestone list, because that is a milestone. It does not have to say she's the oldest person in the U.S. in the text above it.Jay 72091 (talk) 11:02 PM, 5 August 2012 CST

Last person born when Grover Cleveland was president

I replaced the reference to Mrs. Cooper being the last surviving person who was born during Grover Cleveland's 2nd presidency. At the date of this writing, there are 61 surviving people who were born during William McKinley's presidency (March 4, 1897 - September 14, 1901). The distinction of Mrs. Cooper being born while Cleveland was president is far more unique than the 61 people who were born during the following presidency. Bill S. (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the name

Excuse me, dear colleages, could anybody give the correct pronunciation of the name Besse? It's necessary for the Russian wikipedia where is a dispute now about the correct phonetic form - [bess] or [bessi].--93.80.94.24 (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I always thought it rhymed with "messy". Georgia guy (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! But is there any reliable source? Or may be it's possible to add the pronunciation to the text of the English article Besse Cooper?--93.80.94.24 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it's needed; I haven't heard anyone mispronounce it. Georgia guy (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would've thought it rhymed with Bessie too, however just a quick google shows that some are claiming that it is pronounced 'bess', one site linked to a news reporter saying it this way. However compounding the problem, both Bess and Bessie are variant pet forms of the other via Elizabeth, i.e. You could easily call someone named Bessie, 'Bess' and vice versa. :/ Any video of her saying her own name would be useful.Number36 (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I too think it's pronounced BEH-see, as in Bessie, as per Quick Baby Names. The spelling appears to have been popular around the time of her birth. — ^Wylie_Coyote 02:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The correct pronunciation is with a silent "e" as in the word dress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.166.165 (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Page protection?

We have a LOT of vandalism going on today, including repeat IP address offenders. Seanette (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I already requested it about the same time you posted this message: see here -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not an expert and wasn't sure how to go about placing that request. Seanette (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

sorry, some was me, not vandalism, her death was announced by her granddaughter today. Will hit the wire soon, i guess.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.253.151 (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As stated, I'm not an expert, but you really need to have a verifiable reference (such as a news article) for something like this BEFORE editing the article. Otherwise, it's vandalism as far as those without your alleged insider info are aware. Seanette (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you using multiple IP addresses? It is very much required, especially under WP:BLP that any addition include a WP:RS. If you have a reliable source, please share and I will be happy to recant any statement I made about vandalism. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, not all was me. Will reference next time. As you can see wasn't alleged. 129.59.253.151 (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Living woman

Now that she's dead, who has succeeded her as the world's oldest living woman?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Dina Manfredini I think. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Dina Manfredini is now the world's oldest living person of either sex. Seanette (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Milestones Overhaul!

Who agrees that the milestone section could do with an overhaul? MattSucci (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "Milestone Overhaul". I agree that there are a few milestones that aren't needed there, but there are a lot that are good. Specify on what you want changed.

thenoobtester ^{(Talk User)} 19:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

As per the contribution by CanadianPaul at Talk:Misao Okawa there is no justification for a Milestones section at all, and in fact it contravenes WP:Trivia, WP:V and WP:OR. A few of the entries under Milestones could be included in the lead paragraph (some already are). Becoming the oldest American, becoming the oldest in the world (with a note on Maria Gomes Valentin), being the eighth oldest at her death and one of eight verified at 116 or more. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

So one could theoretically erase the whole section without consequences, just as long as the more important information is (or is inserted) in the lead paragraph? But wouldn't that create an edit war amongst the more refined users and the "Fanfluff" milestone lovers? Personally I am indifferent as to whether there is a section or not, but if there is, it should be kept as simple as possible with only referenced information! MattSucci (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be removed and any important info included in the opening paragraph. If there is an edit war it can be taken to WP:ANI, but as 3 wiki guidelines are being violated I would think the result of that would be fairly straightforward. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Will you start the editing Mr DerbyCounty or shall I?MattSucci (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, might need need a tweak or two. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Why trivia should not be included

Statements such as "oldest White American person ever to live in 3 centuries" and "2nd-oldest White American person ever" are pure fanfluff. They not only violate WP:TRIVIA but also WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Unless there is a reliable third-party source (i.e. not GRG) that states these assertions they do not belong in wiki. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is the GRG not considered a reliable third-party source? SuperHero2111 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not a news outlet, what the GRG (and its acolytes) considers important is not what the news media considers important. They have their own reasons for categorising people by race, but that is not only a dubious categorisation (see WP:ETHNICITY) it is almost never mentioned in the media. I certainly can't recall any that has ever mentioned that the oldest "white" person was significant. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I do think that being the 8th-oldest person ever is definitely notable, though. SuperHero2111 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

So do I, and so does the media as has been shown the fact that they have reported it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it be OK to write on Jiroemon Kimura's article that he was the 2nd-oldest Japanese person ever, and the oldest Japanese person ever to live in 3 centuries? (Since that is about nationality, rather than race). SuperHero2111 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not 100% sure on the first part so I'll let someone else get that one. The second part however, is original research. Unless you find a reliable source (that isn't a GRG table) that states he's the oldest Japanese person to live in 3 centuries then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Besse Cooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130111071559/http://loganville.patch.com/articles/world-s-oldest-woman-dies-at-116 to http://loganville.patch.com/articles/world-s-oldest-woman-dies-at-116
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831063153/http://loganville.patch.com/articles/happy-sweet-116th-birthday-to-the-worlds-oldest-living-person to http://loganville.patch.com/articles/happy-sweet-116th-birthday-to-the-worlds-oldest-living-person

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)