Talk:Józef Kowalski (supercentenarian)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Michael Tsyunyak

Shouldn't Michael Tsyunyak of Ukraine be the oldest unverified European man now? And if Tsyunyak is ever verified, wouldn't Stanley Lucas's former status of oldest European man be nullified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.129.251 (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

But it has not been verified.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ulanow

Was in Germany before 1945, how therefore could he have served in an Ulanoy regiment? Perhpas this is the polish word for are?Slatersteven (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right - the wikilink goes wrong. I've imagined his regiment were Uhlans - but looking at the german town I see there's a town in Poland with a w as the last letter - so perhaps his regiment was from that town, in the southeast perhaps near where the bolsheviks attacked. I'll try google translation on a few more of the referenced websites. Hepcat65 (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I checked the sources. They say he claims to have been in XXII Pułku Ułanów, wich translates to "XXII Lancers Regiment" I found an article at polish wiki about the 15 Pułk Ułanów wich also has a enWiki article: 15th Poznań Uhlans Regiment. This settles the issue, I think - I'll fix the wikilink. Hepcat65 (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone tell me who are the last surviving WWI vetrans today 3/03/11. Why have they not been knighted by the queen? Are there any other WWI vetrans alive today? Civilian knowledge (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

World War I?

So he IS a WWI vet, right? The list of living vets lists him, but the article doesn't: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I --24.22.82.173 (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He's listed as a World War I era veteran. The criteria for being listed as an era veteran are included in the article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Living

It's now well past what would have been Kowalski's 111th birthday and there appears to be nothing reporting that he is/was still alive. Any confirmation of this would be useful. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

[1] [2] SiameseTurtle (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"Claim"

The word "claim" is to be generally avoided on Wikipedia, as it is seen to connote the possibility of falsehood. Is there any reason that the word "claim" is necessary in this article? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A note on "claim." The word in fact is used on numerous articles on the subject of longevity. On the page which lists verified CLAIMS of those over 110, we see these words: "This article is about validated specific supercentenarian claims by modern standards." The word "claim" does not connote falsehood, it connotes something subject to verification. "Claims" can be shown to be false, or verified. Canada Jack (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This seems entirely sensible. Contrary to Joefromrandb's opinion use of the word "thought" implies a degree of surety which is not borne out by any facts. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not about my opinion; it's about long-standing consensus that the word "claim" should be avoided. I'd be quick to agree that my choice of "thought" is also not the best; feel free to change it to something better. Just not "claimed". Joefromrandb (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong forum. Take that beef to WT:Words to avoid. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh, correct forum. Two editors agree "claimed" is entirely appropriate in this context. Please familiarize yourself with what is meant by "claim" in this context on the various longevity pages. A "claim" is an assertion of an age - claims are either verified, or not. See the lede of Oldest people where it reads... "In these tables, a supercentenarian is considered 'verified' if his or her claim has been validated by an international body..." or this on the List of the oldest verified people page: "This article is about validated specific supercentenarian claims by modern standards. For modern, or complete, unvalidated supercentenarian claims, see Longevity claims. For historical, incomplete unvalidated supercentenarian claims, see Longevity myths." Indeed, there is a page therein mentioned called Longevity claims. Use of the word "claim" in these contexts reflects the fact that in this subject these assertions are subject to verification. Citing the WP is fine, but as most senior editors will attest, there are exceptions to every rule, and this is one of them. Since two editors agree and only you disagree, reach a consensus before you insert another word. "Thought to be" implies the claim has been verified and the person is oldest unless another older candidate is discovered. Besides, we can ask "who?" "thinks" Kowalski is the oldest in Poland - it is certainly not GRG, the world's leading arbitrator on the subject. Canada Jack (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it's laughable that you think two editors agreeing about something gives you a pass to ignore long-standing consensus elsewhere (see WP:Localconsensus). Second, I don't care what kind of happy horseshit is in other articles (see WP:OTHERCRAP). Finally, I'll repeat for the umpteenth time that I agree that "thought to be" is far from ideal, and I urge editors to come up with something better within existing policies and guidelines. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What sources say that he is Poland's oldest living man? I looked through a few: one says he is the oldest and only surviving participant of the Polish-Bolshevik War, another that as of 2009 he was one of Poland's oldest people, and another that as of 2007 he was the oldest in Lubuskie. Braincricket (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. All of this shit about "Poland's oldest living man" began as original research by the longevity fanboys. We have sources that he's the oldest military veteran in the world; that's all that need be included for now. If sources are found for the former, it can be put back; per WP:BLP it must be removed rather than cite-tagged. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this article says he's the oldest man in Poland. Can a Polish-speaker confirm this? Also, is it a reliable source? Braincricket (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, as Wiki talk:BLP was of no use, I finally got an answer from the Help Desk: Help Desk]. Note that "thought to be" should never be used. Nor should "Claimed to be". But "claimed by xxx to be" is acceptable with a citation to the appropriate source. As in "claimed by xxx to be the world's oldest military veteran"(not that there is an source, yet, making such a claim). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There might be. Take a look at my comment just above. Google translate says "Mr. Joseph is now 112 years and is the oldest man in Poland." Like, I don't speak Polish so I don't know if the translation is accurate and if it's a reliable source anyway ? Braincricket (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the google translation appears to be clear. But it does not mention who determined that he was the oldest/last or how his age has been established. This a major failing of WP:RS, the source can make the statement and it is supposed to be blindly accepted, even when there is nothing presented that could provide any basis for reliability (there are plenty of reports of people aged 120, or even 130+ which WP:RS determines are "reliable"). For all we know this could be another Andrew Rasch case. I suggest:

"According to a Polish newspaper report Kowalski was, at 112, the oldest man in Poland by August 2012".<ref>citation</ref>

This attributes the statement to a source but leaves any judgement about the reliability or accuracy of that source up to the reader. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, is Wieści Podwarszawskie a respectable paper or is it a tabloid? Braincricket (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The literal translation of "Wieści Podwarszawskie" is "tidings suburban" which sounds very much like a local community paper. I can't find any guideline which mentions whether such publications are considered reliable and in what DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it's laughable that you think two editors agreeing about something gives you a pass to ignore long-standing consensus elsewhere. First of all, the subject is longevity. In terms of that subject, owing to a) the large number of claims, and b) the large percentage of claims which are shown to be exaggerated or fraudulent, the use of the term is entirely appropriate as claims are indeed subject to verification. As opposed to, say, writing `Barack Obama claims to have a degree from Harvard`or what have you, which would suggest there is doubt which is what the policy in fact addresses.

Second, I don't care what kind of happy horseshit is in other articles This person`s claim to notability is the fact he is the oldest this and the oldest that. To underline that on this particular subject a high incidence of either unverifiable claims are made, or claims which prove to be exaggerated or fraudulent, we use the word `claim`` frequently.

And in this particular case, not only has the claim not been verified, I understand that relatives who could produce contemporary documentation or allow longevity experts access to this in, I think, Ukraine where he was born, have refused the otherwise routine access to allow this to happen. Which raises red flags. All the more reason to underline this is a CLAIM. I checked in the last week or so, as Joe`s objections seem overstated, and discovered there is a lot of chatter on sites elsewhere on this case: Seems there is a mini-campaign to bypass the normal ways to whereby these sorts of things are verified on the one hand, and on the other hand, excise the doubt that exists in this particular case on the claims being made within the article, even though this is normal practice on longevity articles for the reasons stated earlier. Canada Jack (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

@Canada:WP:Localconsensus, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; read, digest, repeat as necessary. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Derby:Funny you should mention Andy Rasch; he comes to mind as the perfect example of where "claim" would have been appropriate. That is, someone who appears out of nowhere, saying that he's one-hundred-and-some years old and fought in WWI. Kowalski, on the other hand, has been known to the world for years. Following WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP, there is no reason to write that he only "claims" to be 113. I would support your suggestion of: "According to a Polish newspaper...". Also, your obsession with "thought to be" is becoming troubling. You've been here for a long time- my AGF is running out. I said from the get-go that "thought to be" was, in my own words, "far from ideal". I don't expect to need to clarify this again. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Joe, I am aware of the various issues you flagged - however, I should point out that in this particular case, the biography, this page, would not exist without the claim. That is his notability - that he is the lone survivor from the Polish/Soviet war, World War I, or whatever, and that his age, if true, not only makes him the oldest living man, but one of the dozen or so oldest men in history. What is odd here is not that he appeared out of nowhere - his case has been known about for several years, as you say - what is odd about this case is the documentation exists, apparently, but requires the permission of his relatives to access. So, verification should be relatively routine. So the fact that the case has been known for years adds more red flags as his relatives have resisted what should be a routine process - verifying the claim - instead, as I understand it, talking about the government card he has (which isn't a contemporary document) and generally waging a media campaign against "jealous" westerners or what have you, demanding proof he isn't the age he claims, trying to reverse the onus of proof.

For those reasons, the usual policy on the use of "claim" simply don't apply. This page would not exist if not for the claim, a claim which is normally subject to verification, verification which, apparently, has been blocked by relatives. And now relatives can point to THIS page and say, "see, he's the age he claims," as there is nothing here to suggest any such claim is subject to verification, or has not been verified. Canada Jack (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You're obviously just making this up as you go at this point. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, you talk about the policies, as if that is the end of the story, and I have been saying it isn't a "case closed" per the policies as they are guidelines not set rules, and that in the general sense notability which rests on an age claim should underline that this is a claim when not verified. That's what I have been saying all along. What is new is me saying that in this specific case, gerontologists have raised suspicions because the family has blocked access. This isn't news, though perhaps you weren't aware of this. And certainly no one reading the article will have an inkling that there is any controversy here at all. Canada Jack (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

All of this is your own original research. If you have strong sources that mention controversy concerning Kowalski's DOB, then we'll have something to discuss. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ever since I noticed you were so adamant on excising "claimed" from here, I thought it odd - you seem to be an experienced editor, and in terms of inserting "claimed" on a page which would not exist without this claim of being born in 1900, the need to insert a word which expresses the routine caution when such amazing assertions are made - Kowalski would be the oldest living man on the planet, if verified - should make obvious the need to underline that. But you seem bent on pulling every policy you can - even when obviously misapplied - to make sure that routine disclaimer is not here. So, I have to wonder: What is really going on here, Joe? What is your specific interest in this? Come on, you can tell us... we won't tell anyone else... Canada Jack (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust Survivor

STILL ALIVE?

Can someone direct me to the source that says he is a holocaust survivor? Daniel Stavons (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I originally thought you were asking this because the article says he was held in a concentration camp (which doesn't necessarily mean "Holocaust survivor"), but now I see that someone added the category, so the question bears repeating. Anyone? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

He was prisoner of war held in stalag, not in extermination camp. Source in Polish: Najstarszy Polak świata. --Hektor Absurdus (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure he is still alive? When I saw pictures of him at age 112 he looked somewhat frail. In Feb of 2013 he honestly looked like he was bedridden and on his death bed. When was it last reported he was living?

Death, and Talk Page Section closings

His death was updated here on Wikipedia 2 days late, but nevertheless he died December 7. So, I will now close all the Talk Page Sections specifically surrounding WP:BLP or otherwise his being alive. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not how it works at all. WP:BLP doesn't cease to apply the second someone's heart stops beating. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Joe, your obsession with removing the routine notes that this is an unverified claim, is, to say the least, interesting. Especially given that Kowalski's relatives have apparently blocked the ability of researchers to verify his rather astonishing claim - he would have had one of the 10-longest male lifespans in history, if verified. Joe, do you have any vested interest in this outside your normal role as editor at wikipedia? Are you in any way connected to Kowalski's relatives, or are you related to this man? Canada Jack (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

What is more interesting is that in recent months, GRG has received documentation for other Polish super-c's, seven to mid-November, one of whom was still alive. Documentation has been received, though not yet are fully validated. Most were born in Russia, but one was born in Ukraine. It is very odd that Kowalski's relatives are still apparently not cooperating with researchers now that Waclaw Jan Kroczek and GRG are actively investigating these claims in Poland. Canada Jack (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"10 longest male lifespans in history" is utter nonsense. That statement refers only to those "verified" by GRG, something that has no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia (or reality, for that matter). Joefromrandb (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... we are getting closer, Joe! Yes, you are correct, "reality" as per GRG. That "reality" is simply what can be verified with a high degree of certainty, given the widespread fraud and exaggerated claims on this subject, so it is important, your personal opinion on this notwithstanding. But the "reality" is that there are 100s, if not 1000s of unverified claims which exceed Kowalski's, which makes HIS claim rather irrelevant in terms of his age. However, if he is claiming to be a military veteran of some war, that is something different. The fact that the family is blocking what would be routine access to documents to verify he is who he claims to be - the last surviving veteran of a particular war - suggests the possibility that he may have been doing something thousands of "veterans" have done for several hundred years - claim benefits for something he had no part in. And if it was to be revealed that he in fact took the place of a brother or inflated his age or otherwise in terms of receiving benefits, one can understand why his relatives would be loath to allow access to documents other than the post facto ones issued by the Polish government.

I will ask you again - what connection, if any, do you have with this man? Canada Jack (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There he goes again. Joe has reverted changes which show the doubt about this case while saying "Robert's" changes are not welcome here. No doubt referring to Robert Young, one of the world-wide authorities on claims of extreme age. But Joe knows better, apparently. And, apparently, Joe now owns this page. Time to come clean, Joe, what, if any, connection to you have to the Kowalski family and why are you censoring the fact that Kowalski's claim is subject to doubt? More than doubt, actually. The family has blocked access to records which would confirm the claim- if true. Now why would they do that? Canada Jack (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)