Talk:Mary Ramsey Wood/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Making a Mountain out of a Molehill

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV needed

message: Reposted from Katr67's talk page.
Compromise: OK to keep the  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)
thread_title:  Compromise 

message: 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)
replies: text: Be mindful of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Aboutmovies 20:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Citations Au Contraire

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A plea from the copy editor 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Found a source for the census data 

message: It's not original research if a reasonable non-expert can follow the reasoning.--Michael C. Price talk 17:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in Wikipedia guidelines/policies is that located? Aboutmovies 17:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Do you think I could move this discussion out of the middle of our attempt at mediation? Katr67 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion about original research

message: *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)
replies: text: Fascinating. Any chance you can scan and upload? -Pete 22:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: 1900 Census

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Repetition of Error Does Not make the truth

message: Transactions of the Forty-First annual reunion of the Oregon Pioneer Association. Portland, June 19, 1913. 1916, Contains the Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Grand Encampment of Indian War Veterans of the North Pacific coast. And, other items of historic interest including information and photo of Mrs. Mary Ramsey Lemons Wood (1787-1908). Reference to this publication found here: http://www.woodenski.com/2neat/state/oregon.htm Katr67 20:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mention of Wood in 1907 publication: http://www.endtime.org/library/knott/reverence.html Katr67 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source for more info 

message: Transcription of death certificate and discussion of actual ages of children. Valfontis (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Message board thread

message: Mention of Mary Wood and photo in the Washington Post on January 2, 1908. Says she was also known as "Mother Wood". Only found it in pay sites. Valfontis (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington Post

message: https://web.archive.org/web/20080509131551/http://www.endoftheoregontrail.org/piofam/famlemons.html Who is in the image is disputed, per the Arcadia book, it is an unknown woman, James Imbrie and Dr. Elmer Smith. Valfontis (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive of page with disputed image mentioned above