Talk:Violet Brown

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: the sources cited. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth
Different sources give different dates of birth for this person. I have asked at the reliable sources noticeboard whether there is any reason to consider any of them more or less reliable than the others. Until and unless full consensus is reached on that there seems to be little point in attempting to give particular weight to one of them and put one only of the possible dates in the infobox. Our biographies of living people policy is quite clear on this: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". I've also asked at WP:BLP/N whether in a case like this it is better to give equal weight to the various sources, or simply to remove the date of birth altogether. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Several points here:


 * 1. First of all, Violet Brown's birth certificate has been located by GRG researchers. I can send you a link to it on Family Search if you want.


 * 2. There is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that this document is inaccurate, and there is no reason to believe that Jamaica's record keeping has a tendency to contain errors. But even if a mistake were made, it's up to RESEARCHERS in the field of age verification to make that determination, NOT some people on Wikipedia. Speculation on hypothetical sources of error is original research.


 * 3. The GRG is a reliable source when it comes to age verification. The date of birth listed on their website is far more likely to be correct that local news sources, which could be reporting the dates on which her birthday celebrations were held, rather than when her actual birthday was.


 * I see no reason why we need to include a mention of multiple birthdays. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In fact ironically, it is your edits that in violation of WP:BLP since your changes are extremely contentious and imply that her date of birth is dubious when it has been officially verified by an international organisation that deals with longevity claims. The suggestion that GRG information is not a reliable source is in direct contradiction to WP:RS. The GRG publishes their information on an annual basis in peer-reviewed journals, which are explicitly stated to be reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. Please take heed of your own advice about blocking policy. The contentious information you keep adding about this living person will continue to be removed. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Marriage and Child
In the article it states that she married her husband in the 1960s and had a daughter. There is virtually no way this could be true. It would mean she gave birth in her 60s, making her just about the oldest person in history, to that point, to give birth. The only plausible report of a woman in her 60s giving birth prior to the late 1980s is an unconfirmed report in a medical journal from the late 1800s. This would have made news at the time. The only problem I have in deleting it outright is that she is quoted giving this timeline in an article that is cited. Any thoughts on how to handle this? Mantisia (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's why I added the "dubious" tag. The, typically poor, report doesn't mention her first marriage (if there even was one) but does mention 4 children. I'd be tempted to replace that sentence with "She married Augustus Gaynor Brown and they had one child, a daughter. She also had two sons and two daughter from a previous relationship." If anyone complains about removing "important" information we can always take it to WP:BLP/N. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 04:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good way to go. I saw your tag but thought it needed to go further than that.  It is kind of a strange case where we have a printed source quoting the subject in question, but I guess this would be something like when an actor or musician makes up a back story and purports it to be true.  Although in this case I doubt she is intentionally misleading us.  More likely the years have blurred together after living such a long time.  I just found this article from 2009 that may help debunk the 1960s claim.  It states she has four living children and mentions one son that died.  That would make it 3 sons and 2 daughters.  The youngest child, a daughter, was 71 in 2009.  That makes her year of birth 1937 or 1938.  It doesn't disprove the claim outright, but it helps.
 * http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/westernnews/147802_Violet-Moss-Brown109--not-out  Mantisia (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to bring this issue up again: has it occurred to anyone that Violet and Augustus had a child first in a common-law marriage but only made it official at a much-later date? I understand that it was not very common among many of the poor/lower classes in Jamaica to actually get an official government document (a marriage license) until social safety net programs in the 1960s encouraged people to register. Maybe we should reconsider adding this bit of information back in. Ollie231213 (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

News Story with Potentially Useful Information on Violet Brown and her son Harold Fairweather
This news story from the Jamaican Observer gives a lot of information on Violet Brown and Harold Fairweather. News Story:   This might be useful for including more information about Violet Brown and Harold Fairweather on the Violet Brown wikipedia page. The news story mentions how Violet Brown went to the Baptist Church and some of the things she and her son Harold did in their lives. Might be interesting for readers of the Wikipedia Page to know what these people have done during their lives and some of these highlights about them. Of course, as long as this source follows all the Wikipedia rules--I'm still learning what all the rules are on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.3.26 (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This sort of fanfluff is specifically excluded from longevity-related biographies as specified here. The Fairweather article will be deleted shortly so further discussion on anything relating to that article is pointless. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 07:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with User above that mentioning interesting facts about Violet Brown can be useful. I also believe the Harold Fairweather page should be kept, which I posted my vote on the page about whether or not deleting the Harold Fairweather page, with my reasons for keeping the page. One of the goals of Wikipedia is to be one of the largest encyclopedias in the world, and to include breadth and depth...so including depth about Violet Brown and Harold Fairweather on their pages is matching with the goals of Wikipedia, it would seem. FranklinManaway (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)FranklinManaway

oldest person with a living parent - ever?
I've seen informations/claims concerning a "Mary Manuel (Mary Perkins Patterson Manuel)" that states, that she was 97 years 11 months and 3 days old when she died on December 12th 1997, and that her mother (Susana Patterson) was still living at that time. Even though the actual age of the mother seem to be disputed, then the interesting thing is, that she outlived her daughter.

Whether these dates and informations are absolute credible, I don't know, but I think the safest thing to do would be to wait with a statement concerning Harold Fairweather like "and possibly the oldest ever [with a living parent]" until he has turned 97 years 11 months and 4 days old. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As there is no citation claiming Fairweather is the oldest ever, it should never have been included as it fails both WP:OR and WP:BLP. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 16:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

First Time Two Individuals Confirmed 117 or older alive at same time since 1998
This is the first time since 1998 that two individuals confirmed as 117 or older have been alive at the same time, and only the second time ever this has occurred. Don't know if there is a reliable source that can be found on this, and if this would be noteworthy enough to add to wikipedia, but should be looked at. JasonPhelps (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)JasonPhelps
 * Fanfluff trivia. Without a citation it can't be included. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 00:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017
The article claims that she, and another, are the last living people born in the 19th century. Since she was born in 1900 doesn't that make it the 20th? Otherwise if it is still the 19th, the article about the previous oldest person/last living 19th century person needs to be edited (it makes a big deal about how she was the last living person born in the 19th) 123.3.149.247 (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 19th century = 1801-1900 NOT 1800-1899. The clarification has now been added to this article. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 05:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

❌

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017
This page states that Violet Brown is one of the two last living people born in the 19th century, as Violet Brown was born in 1900, this is untrue. The last person alive from the 19th century was Emma Morano who died on April 15th, 2017. 198.30.250.20 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See 19th century --I am One of Many (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

19th century
People keep removing this, claiming that 1900 is not part of the 19th century and that Violet Brown wasn't born in the 19th century. Apparently it is a common belief that 1900 starts the 20th century. 2602:306:3653:8440:D093:98D4:5E10:99C7 (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017
Please replace "She is also the first verified supercentenarian from Jamaica and the oldest verified Jamaican person ever." with "She is also the first verified supercentenarian in Jamaican history." If she's only verified supercentenarian in the country's history, by definition she's the oldest verified Jamaican ever. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC) 208.95.51.38 (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Whilst this is true, she still holds both titles. It is possible that another Jamaican will live to be older, claiming that title, yet she will retain being the first super-centenarian. —   IVORK  Discuss 11:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Attempts to clarify confusing statement are repeatedly reverted
It says that her date of birth is 10 March 1900, and yet she was born in the 19th century. To most readers this seems like an obvious contradiction. The idea that the 19th century ends on 31 December 1900 is a picky technicality that most people are unaware of, or wouldn't agree with. Attempts to explain this within the article are repeatedly reverted (presently it is explained in an in-line note, but not visible to readers). What can be done to stop this reversion of an explanation that is quite obviously beneficial to readers? The person who just has the most patience to keep stubbornly reverting should not be allowed to prevail. 86.191.155.18 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I made it into a hidden note on the 24th and I don't think there's been any change since then, has there? Rothorpe (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a "picky technicality", it's a fact. It may also be a common misconception, but Wikipedia should not repeat false information just because a lot of people believe it. Jdcooper (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Nobody is suggesting that Wikipedia should "repeat false information". My edit added a note to this article to explain that the 19th century is considered to end on the 31 December 1900, to help readers understand that what appears to be an error or contradiction is actually intentional. This was repeatedly reverted in the face of common sense. This edit should be reinstated. It only takes a few words in brackets to dispel the doubt. 86.191.155.18 (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, I notice now that there are three previous discussions about exactly this matter above, just reinforcing how confusing it is to people, and how much the article would benefit from a short note along the lines of my original edit. Please see sense on this. 86.191.155.18 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue you raise has already been taken care of the way we typically do here by linking to the article on the 19th century, which gives the dates. So, there is no need for a note or explanation and that is why you have been reverted. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2017
She is the real world's oldest living person, although under the world's oldest living person titleholders says it's Anthony Paul is the world's oldest living person who was born on July 6, 1999 who is currently the age 25 years. 2605:A000:1103:217:5475:C08B:77F7:1D2B (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Anthony Paul is a tedious little vandal who has no place in Wikipedia. I am considering requesting that a bot be created to automatically revert any edit which includes his name and for the user who made the edit to be blocked indefinitely. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 04:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Descendance?
Does anyone know if Brown's children also had children? --190.92.15.126 (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2017
While the statement, "Brown was born when Jamaica was a part of the British Empire and is the last living former subject of Queen Victoria" sounds intriguing. I would have to imagine SOMEONE was born between her (apparently in dispute?) date of birth on March 10, 1900 and Queen Victoria's very verified death on January 22, 1901 that still remains alive.

However, I have no data to back that up. then again, the citation for the claim is no longer a valid url.

I would like to remove the entire sentence, "Brown was born when Jamaica was a part of the British Empire and is the last living former subject of Queen Victoria" in the top paragraph. 99.59.132.148 (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Since no sources can be found, the change cannot be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the dead link. Problem solved. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 04:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2017
Can i please edit the page, some of the info is misleading 76.9.53.147 (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the page has been protected until 1 October. What is the "misleading" info you wish to change? DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 23:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit
People who revert edits like this are the reason people hate editing Wikipedia. — Hugh 20:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Use ISO dates
It got reverted back to DMY format, but I want ISO for this article, so I reverted it back to ISO date format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1103:309:CD63:66A3:A1E1:7F51 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Date Format examples

2007-05-31 returns 2007-05-31

2007-05-31 returns 2007-05-31 2007-05-31 returns 2007-05-31 2007-05-31 returns 2007-05-31 2007-05-31 returns 2007-05-31

"sic"
Is the use of [sic] really acceptable when it's not an error, but the transcription of a dialect? I'm tentatively changing that to italics with no "sic", as it seems off-color. Do correct me if I'm wrong. 27.81.83.15 (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit, as the article on sic indicates that it is "inserted after a quoted word or passage indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed exactly as found in the source text, complete with any erroneous or archaic spelling, surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might otherwise be taken as an error of transcription." That fits here. Also, the italicizing renders it a different format than the quoted source. One is left to believe that this was the way it was formatted in the source. Sic is much more precise. Peaceray (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No, sic is not right here, and I have reverted it. The original source does not contain a sic and is written in English, albeit Jamaican English. Perhaps such a spelling is not correct in your variety of English, but this page is about a Jamaican subject. "Sic" implies that the quotation contains an error, which it does not. agt x 06:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oldest child with a living parent?
It is claimed that Violet Brown's eldest son Harold, who died on 19 April 2017 at age 97 years and 4 days, was the oldest person with a living parent - but is this really correct?

Wasn't Nabi Tajima's eldest son "the oldest living child", as he was born in 1919? If born in 1919, he would have been older than Violet's son, and aged 98+ at the time of Nabi Tajima's death in late-April 2018.

P.S.: Is it reported that Nabi Tajima's eldest son has celebrated his 100th birthday in 2019? 212.100.101.104 (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To prove the case you would need proof of his birth date and death date. As things stand you don't even have his name. I am therefore very skeptical. Why do you think he was alive when she died?
 * As it stands even the birth date of Nabi Tajima herself is disputed. There are claims that she was at least one year younger than indicated. Weburbia (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nabi Tajima, claimed to be born 4 August 1900, may have been up to two years younger than claimed. If born in 1902, she would have given birth to her oldest child already at age 17, which is possible. 212.100.101.104 (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)