This article is basically plagiarizing the GRG list, and we should consider its removal.Ryoung122 05:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be hard to have a list of supercentenarians without appearing at least somewhat similar to their list. If anyone can think of any way of making this list less like their's, please make a comment. All I can think of is alphabetizing the list instead of going chronological, but that doesn't really make any sense. Useight 05:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is...who will decide who to include/exclude on this list? And, if it is the 'same' as the GRG list, why have the article at all?Ryoung122 19:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would think that a list of living people that are 110 or older should include people that are 110 or older. But I see your point, because there are many unverified claims of people's ages. Personally, I think only verified claims should make this list because this is an encyclopedia. As for your other question, I know Wikipedia isn't a mirror, but there are other articles about the oldest, heaviest, etc, and I just like having all the information in one place. Useight 22:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I just saw your userpage and now know why you have such an interest in this topic. Useight 22:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say this: if the list mirrors the GRG list, what is the purpose? If the list does not mirror the GRG list, who decides the standards and what cases to accept?Ryoung122 04:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this list only mirrors the GRG list because I'm not the only one who edits this article and the other people may not have gotten their information from that list. This list is trying to compile the data from the GRG list and from other lists to make a comprehensive list. Anyway, maybe the article should be deleted as a mirror, perhaps it should be put up in the WP:AFD and let the masses decide. Useight 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are more people in it (four to be precise), namely almost validated ones as well: great stuff. Extremely sexy 23:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no current way of referencing it, a Canadian women turned 110 today, July 23rd, 2007. I can't add it, as I don't have her name, or any other information, except for her location, Qualicum Beach, British Columbia. Hope to see it on the list as soon as it can be proven. Kaiser matias 02:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So may I ask how exactly you acquired this information, dear Matias (from Germany most presumably)? Extremely sexy 13:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I found her name over here: it's Dorothy Hodgson. Extremely sexy 15:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was casually watching the local news and it was mentioned in passing. It took a minute for the news to register of what was said, and by the time I found this page and all that, I had completely forgotten her name. Glad to see someone else had found it though. Kaiser matias 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you actually do live in Canada? Extremely sexy 20:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born and raised in British Columbia. Kaiser matias 20:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you are of German descent obviously? Extremely sexy 21:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German, Polish, English. All of the above. Here's a link to further confirm Hodgson as 110: Parksville Qualicum News Kaiser matias 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway, but I already posted that particular one on the "WOP" forum. Extremely sexy 11:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued that the list as currently constructed is 'Original Research'. Also, since Bessie Roffey of Canada was apparently born Mar 2 1897, why is she not listed? 74.237.28.5 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point too, and I didn't add Mrs. Hodgson anyway, but the four others are about to be validated very soon. Extremely sexy 12:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Bart, please reference every case on the GRG list, and for those not on the GRG list, they should be asterisked* and referenced to the article. Note this is 'dangerous' because it opens the door for people to add junk like Horhiy Nestor. If a simple news article is enough, we are in trouble. Think about it.Ryoung122 02:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's your job actually, but I in fact added Bessie Roffey as well, since you are close to validate her. Extremely sexy 19:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start the article, so no, it's not my job. However I will delete any case I think is suspect (i.e. Ruby Muhammad, who is probably 'only' 100, not 110, years old).Ryoung122 05:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article, nobody in particular has the job or responsibility to add the sources since nobody actually owns the article. It'd be nice for someone to get around to it, possibly me if I get the time. I'll put some effort into it tomorrow, but everyone should be helping out rather than shunning the job. Useight 06:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, but, for your information, Muhammad isn't even in the list at all though. Extremely sexy 13:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went through the list and added asterisks to each of the individuals not on the GRG list. I don't have time right now to look up a reference for each one, but they are marked to make it a little easier to find the people who still need references. Useight 22:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I DO like the list because it allows for a quick-referenced table with flags and wikilinks. However, there is a central issue that is a main flaw.

This article's standards can be somewhat lower than the GRG list. The GRG list must insist on higher standards because the 'top 10' persons may be in Guinness (the 2008 edition lists the top 10; the 2007 edition listed the top 15). Given that persons such as 'Rosa Rhein' come from nations with generally-accepted systems of valid recordkeeping, it makes sense to list her on this list (even if not on the GRG list). However, the problem becomes one of explaining why other entries (such as Ruby Muhammad) should be excluded. It becomes a tedious process to explain that the validation rate for African-American supercentenairans in the U.S. South was just 50% in the Social Security Administration study, or that exaggerated ages are often correlated with societies with lower rates of literacy and recordkeeping. This is not to surmise that all African-American cases should be excluded; indeed we see Gertrude Baines on the list. Rather, the point is, the standards of documentation must be higher when coming from areas with a history of age-inflation. This includes places such as Eastern Europe, Africa, India, China, etc. but not places such as Japan, Australia, Western Europe, or the northern U.S. (by comparison, Georgia did not begin issuing birth certificates until 1919; Massachusetts already had them in the 1800's). Further, the higher the age claimed, the greater the scrutiny must be employed (this is similar to the Tour de France testing all the stage winners and overall leaders but not everyone in the race). In no case should the oldest person listed be higher than the Guinness 'oldest living person'...to do so would be 'original research.'Ryoung122 07:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standards of verification for this article should be the same as any other Wikipedia article, and independent of any GRG criteria. Each entry should be verifiable to a reliable source (i.e. Yahoo group is not acceptable). Preferably there should be in-line citations for each entry. To suggest that "This article's standards can be somewhat lower than the GRG list. The GRG list must insist on higher standards because the 'top 10' persons may be in Guinness" is false, the standards here should be higher and evidence of documentary proof linked. - fchd 09:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the standards here are LOWER because, by definition, this is the 'people's encyclopedia' that 'anyone can edit'. The plus-side of that is that new material can be added more quickly and brilliant amateurs aren't held back. The negative side of that is that someone can edit an article for which they have no track record or training. Also, a Yahoo group IS acceptable in some cases. Read the policy again.Ryoung122 06:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the verifiable page:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

In other words, material may be reliable if it comes from 'established experts'. The primary means of transmission or citation is irrelevant. Also, I find it odd that you said that, given:

A. The use of Yahoo group links for WWI vets articles/lists B. The use of websites such as:

http://dersdesders.free.fr/bio_veterans/satar.html

The above source is considered 'generally reliable' because Frederic Mathieu has an established track record of involvement in the field (including arranging the meeting of Henry Allingham, 110, with Robert Meier, 109, in 2006). So long as the information quoted is uncontested by other sources, it can be considered as a reference.

It thus follows that there are 'degrees of reliability'/verifiability.' Many people run around citing Wiki 'policies' as if they are 'law' when they explicitly state they are guidelines...

Now, back to the earlier point: I note one of the 'policies' is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary verifiability/referencing. The more contentious the claim, the higher the standard should be employed to document it. This makes sense. In the case of this list, if someone adds a 110-year-old, it is not 'that' contentious...but if a '125' year-old were added, it would be quite contentious and most probably incorrect.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 06:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I didn't want this list was whoever created it would not be responsible for the upkeep. So, Kozuru Ueda's death has been reported, why is she still on the list?Ryoung122 06:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just updated Soyo Iwakura (born Dec 15 1894, died Oct 19 2006). The most tedious part of the updating is having to change 'all' the age rankings. Don't expect me to do this all the time. I'll provide the info (you don't need references to delete something, do you?). References can be found either on the GRG website or the World's Oldest People message board.

Next change: someone please add Mississippi Wynn (born Mar 31 1897) USA. Thanks.Ryoung122 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thankfully, close to the bottom. Canadian Paul 01:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]