Talk:Sarah Knauss/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

2000 is not a separate millennium from the 1800s. The "second millennium", in which Sarah Knauss would have lived, did not begin until 1 January 2001. This should be corrected. (unsigned comment)

This has already been taken care of~though. Extremely sexy 19:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. If you count the first millenium from 1BC it IS correc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.199.230 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You could just as easily say the first millenium was from -1bc to 99ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.124.4 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What are the words "ugly bitch" doing there at the beginning????? (unsigned comment)

I removed "ugly bitch." Um, the second millennium began 1 January 1001. jaknouse 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is her second millennium that was actually meant. Extremely sexy 19:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Copryright infringement?

The text in this article is taken almost verbatim from the news article at article on the CBS News website. 67.149.103.119 01:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is very barren considering she is the longest lived American ever. 69.113.183.72 (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. Sadly, supercentenarians are mostly ordinary people, so there's not much to find out about them. Actually, this article is quite good for a super-c, considering that only about 50% of super-c articles actually get photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanology (talk • contribs) 11:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WP: Women's History Assessment Commentary

This article was rated as Start-class, for its lack of citations and because the text is poorly worded, confusing, and/or needs clarification. For example, the text implies that Ms. Knauss was actually aboard the RMS Titanic when it sank in 1912. If she was not, then she did not "live through" the incident. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Knauss' photo

I think the picture on the article doesn't do justice to Sarah Knauss, who was known as an elegant and dignified woman until her very end. I believe it would be better to choose another picture like this one for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/80000/images/_80119_old300.jpg which portraits Sarah Knauss aged 117 in 1997.

Citations

I don't think we need 12 citations in the 2-sentence lead. MB298 (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Date of death

Was December 31, 1999 not December 30. Merrill, Gary F. (February 3, 2015). Our Aging Bodies. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 9780813575261. Retrieved December 7, 2015. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The book may be wrong. Gerontology Research Group (http://www.grg.org/Adams/C.HTM), Guinness World Records (see 2005 edition) and so many other sources/citations says that she died on 30 Dec. 1999.Inception2010 (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

All off the sources say December 31. The Nevada source had the wrong publication date. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually the date of announced her death was December 31...but her death date was December 30. Also many sources (example:[1]) said that she died 33 hours before the beginning of 2000. It means that she died on December 30, 1999. Inception2010 (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Third century

Currently in the article: "She died 33 hours short of living into a third century, just missing the year 2000 celebration."

This is totally wrong, the 21st century began on January 1, 2001 (this is quite trivial, ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century), since she died on December 30, 1999 she missed more than 1 full year. Obngfs (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

True. I tried to add this point of view (didn't want to just delete the sentence as someone would just put it back anyway). – Alensha ^talk 23:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

7 generations?

In the current article: "At her death, she was one of seven living generations of her family.[10]" that article is not free, but found interestingly in the 2nd citation: "With six generations living at the same time, the Knauss family stretched from 119-year-old Sarah to 4-year-old Bradley Patton, her great-great-great grandson." ref. http://articles.mcall.com/2000-01-01/topic/3301066_1_oldest-person-sarah-knauss-new-century/2 So it should be six generations, or seven, but in that case this ref is wrong. 91.83.2.115 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The CNN and Morning Call sources in the article also mention 6 generations. There is a case of 7 generations from Augusta Bunge but no co-mention by Guinness of Knauss in this regard, which would be strange given Knauss's fame as world's oldest person, if there really were 7 generations in her family. Based on the sources that say 6 generations, I'm going to change it. Gap9551 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Contested?

Isn't it a bit premature to characterize Jeanne Clament's status as oldest verified person as contested? One study that presents mostly just inconsistencies in an undeniably old person's statements that has been out for a month and hasn't had the chance to be further considered by the gerontological field is hardly evidence. Certainly worth being considered by the experts and will hopefully be explored but not really to the point of reclassifying a previously verified claim as contested. Should other experts in the field concur that the study has merit and deserves further investigation sure, especially since motivated identity theft is a lot more likely than such a statistical anomaly, but until then its jumping the gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.203.103 (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, the verb contest means "to make the subject of dispute, contention, or litigation". The mere existence of the report that questions Clament's claims is sufficient to label them as "contested". It doesn't mean the claims are disproved or even that they are more likely than not false. It just means that they are disputed by some, which is the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.67.209 (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't rush to judgement. And it's frustrating having to speculate when DNA evidence could settle the issue. However: https://medium.com/@yurideigin/jaccuse-why-122-year-longevity-record-may-be-fake-af87fc0c3133 It's hard to disagree with: “No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity.” (Norris McWhirter and Ross McWhirter, The Guinness Book of Records, 1986.) Perhaps compare previous Guinness authentications of the longest living person http://gerontology.wikia.com/wiki/Pierre_Joubert & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigechiyo_Izumi Yes, it's just about medically possible that a chronic smoker lived almost 3% longer than anyone else in history. But there are...anomalies.--Davidcpearce (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It is way premature to go around other longevity articles and start added "contested" because of one hypothesis.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is a good source for Knauss being "the oldest indisputably verified supercentenarian ever" it doesn't belong in this article, and certainly not in the lede. I understand there are questions and doubts about Clament, but that doesn't mean we do synthesis and original research here. Jonathunder (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. And per WP:BRD this addition should be discussed here rather than being repeatedly re-added.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oldest person ever

Calment's age has been challenged by researchers who consider that her daughter Yvonne may have assumed Calment's identity in 1934. Other researchers have criticised this hypothesis on the basis of extensive prior research into Calment's life.

Jeanne Calment's identity was swapped with Yvonne Calment, stealing her mother's identity and adding 23 years on to her record

Name/Time	Birth date/time	Death date/time	Age in years and days
Jeanne Calment	1875-02-21	1997-08-04	122 years, 164 days
Jeanne Calment	1875-02-21	1934-01-19	58 years, 332 days
Yvonne Calment	1898-01-19	1934-01-19	36 years, 0 days
Yvonne Calment	1898-01-19	1997-08-04	99 years, 197 days
Time between Jeanne Calment's and Yvonne Calment's birth	1875-02-21	1898-01-19	22 years, 332 days
Time between Jeanne Calment's and Yvonne Calment's death	1934-01-19	1997-08-04	63 years, 197 days

This is somewhat like Shigechiyo Izumi who had swapped with his older brother, and he might have been 105 when he died, but he has been debunked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1103:45:C935:812A:ACA3:DBD9 (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The point of the above is that if this theory gains more traction Knauss would be the oldest person on record and that would mean adjustments to the page. We don't (yet) have RS to make that determination so I would oppose making such changes here. Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fringe theories

@Davidcpearce: Please see the wikipedia section on the addition of fringe theories or material in articles. There is a theory, but no credible proof regarding Jeanne Calment's longevity. As such, it may be worth a mention in the BODY of this article, but certainly not the LEDE, per weight. Thanks. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

We all know peer review is flawed, but it's the best we've got (cf. Zak, Nikolay. "Evidence that Jeanne Calment died in 1934, not 1997". Rejuvenation Research. doi:10.1089/rej.2018.2167.) Sarah Knuass is notable because she is the oldest person whose age has been indisputably validated.--Davidcpearce (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The balance of evidence clearly leans strongly towards the theory that Jeanne Calment was a fake record. Please google and read the case made by the researchers who looked into the issue before coming to the instant conclusion that the record is legitimate. Its a surprisingly strong case with a ton of evidence supporting it. 71.179.173.156 (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Alas, I agree. IMO the selective destruction of the photographic and documentary evidence is particularly damning. But I haven't got the energy for a Wikipedia edit war.--Davidcpearce (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Useful information?

Recent edit: (A member of staff of the nursing home described her as "the friendliest person she had ever met among the home's residents".) Necessary or not? MattSucci (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)