Talk:List of Japanese supercentenarians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

How about a list of Japan's oldest person?Ryoung122 16:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why start in 2003? We could easily go back to the 1980s, all the information is available on the GRG and other sources.Ryoung122 22:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

For example:

http://www.grg.org/Adams/L/Japan.HTM Ryoung122 22:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

okay, I made it til 1966, but I doubt Mito Umeta got the title at 103, there was probably at least a 107 or 108 year old back then. there are somethings that could need somework. 1. Is Yoshigiku Ito is male or female? this link just confuses me: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/8888 2. Which prefectures did Niwa Kawamoto and Mito Umeta come from? all I could find is which region they were from.

from Firefire(Winn) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.251.200 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Kagoshima

I noticed something about this prefecture, their two oldest residents ever, Shigechiyo Izumi and Kamato Hongo, are disputed, is that a good sign for the accuracy of their age or a bad sign? 65.0.53.101 (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Could just be a coincidence. Don't worry your head about it. Brendanology (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Shike Sato

Well, she's been verified by the GRG so why is she not on this list too? I won't change it, though because I don't want to just in case there's a reason it hasn't been changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.88.163 (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Names in dispute/Long dead claimants

According to this article from the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10848254 Looks like quite a few names on this list may now be called into dispute. Someone will have to keep an eye on this list! Wembwandt (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So far not a single person in dispute was on this list.!!! All so far were either under 110 or "anonymous" claims.Ryoung122 03:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Limbo cases

I think there should be a separate list of limbo cases for those are known to have been a supercentenarian but do not have a confirmed death date. The "157 validated" supercentenarians are misleading since there are obviously more.76.193.218.30 (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If someone is over 110 but now we don't know when they died, they are still over 110. I would strongly suggest that, given Japan's history of not reporting a lot of deaths, that a "limbo" list for Japan be created.Ryoung122 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oldest by prefecture

This is somewhat akin to the discussion on Oldest living supercentenarians, but not necessarily the same. I think that if there is to be an "oldest by prefecture"-list here, it must pertain to "oldest at death/residence", rather than "oldest born" in a particular prefecture. The reason is purely practical: In most cases these people have lived in the same prefecture all their lives, but it is practically impossible to learn the birthplace of most of them. Even official reports in Japan refer to oldest living in prefecture, and therefore birthplaces are seldom if ever mentioned. I personally think it is worth to skip consistency for practicality, because the alternative is to remove the "oldest by prefecture"-list altogether, and I think there is some merit in keeping it. Yubiquitoyama (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Woto Michi not Japan's oldest person in 1979

The 1979 Japan centenarian report states that Japan's oldest woman in 1979 was 108 years old.Ryoung122 03:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead

In the lead 'graph there is an "As of {{date}}". While it's admirable to try to keep the article up to date, it's unlikely, if for no other reason than lag in sources. I would suggest, instead, that this be replaced with {{As of}}, and that the date be edited with each update, reflecting the last update date of the source (usually the GRG list). I would also suggest moving it and changing the statistics to which it refers into bullet points for clarity. This is not ideal for a lead, but other than repeating the date (which is ugly), I can't think of another way of being precise. i.e.:

These are lists of Japanese supercentenarians (people from Japan who have attained the age of at least 110 years), according to the Gerontology Research Group. As of 6 January 2013:

• There have been 242 verified supercentenarians from Japan.<ref name="GRG">[http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM Validated living supercentenarians] The Gerontology Research Group lists persons as living whose age has been validated and confirmed to be alive within the past year.</ref>
• In Japan, there are 21 verified living supercentenarians and 12 pending verification. The oldest (verified or pending) is Jiroemon Kimura, aged 127 years, 219 days. Kimura also currently holds the title of the World's oldest living person and is also the oldest verified man ever recorded.
• The oldest person ever from Japan was Tane Ikai, who died in 1995, aged 116 years, 175 days.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of Japanese supercentenarians

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Japanese supercentenarians's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "GRG Deaths in 2005":

• From List of French supercentenarians: GRG Deaths in 2005
• From List of Italian supercentenarians: GRG Deaths for 2005 (in Chronological Order) (Last Updated October 6, 2010) Retrieved 26 September 2011.
• From List of British supercentenarians: GRG Deaths for 2005 (in Chronological Order) (Last Updated 6 October 2010) Retrieved 11 May 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

List of all Japanese (living and dead) who have reached 110 is excessive

Maybe this list should be reduced, to Japanese who have reached 111 or 112, similar to the list in the United States supercentenarian page. The list is not even accurate, since there are so many limbo cases, and missing prefectures of birth. Information tends to be more accurate for the higher ages, i.e., age 113 plus. There are just so many people reaching the age of 110 in Japan, that this list seems pointless and is going to get very difficult to manage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.240.186 (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies

There is currently a discussion about what constitutes encyclopedia content on longevity related biographies at Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies please comment. I am One of Many (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Maushi Uezu

I noticed that Maushi Uezu is still listed as living in the "Japanese supercentenarians" section. Can someone please correct this error and send her to "Limbo cases"? I can't find her death date, so that is why I am asking her to be sent to "Limbo cases". Deaths in 2013 (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hina Shikawatari no reference

I noticed that in the Japanese supercentenarians list, Hina Shikawatari does not have a reference. Why Deaths in 2013 (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove two

Mutsuji Yamawaki and Hama Takebayashi are still listed in the Japanese supercentenarian list. Anyone please remove them since they are limbo now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.28.66 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous

But... The name ? --86.204.216.118 (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hikari Takaoka

She is died ? --86.204.216.118 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Main list is too long

I see no justification for listing every supercentenarian, verified or unverified. That seems to violate WP:LISTS. Even if it does not, it is not encyclopedic to have an open-ended list. Other stand-alone lists typically have a set limit, the greatest of which is usually 100 entries. Unless there are sound reasons, backed up by wiki policy, for keeping the current list I will be WP:BOLD and make the list a top-100 instead. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Top 500. We have a number of anonymous listings to considwe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.120.167 (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that a list of supercentenarians aged 112 and above would be best, both to keep consistency with the list of American supercentenarians and provide a set age bar to be included on the list. A top 100 will gradually keep pushing the minimum threshold up, and this is a list of Japanese supercentenarians, not a list of the oldest Japanese supercentenarians. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 18:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the "top" Japanese supercentarians then? Is it the oldest ever? The people who became the oldest ever? The latest ones? Just curious. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Oldest ever. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion/Suggestion on List Colors

I understand that using only colors to differentiate entries on tables violated WP:MOSCOLOR. However, nothing in the manual of style prohibits the use of color along with other identifying formatting (such as the italics currently being used). Therefore, I have a suggestion: for living entries, add in a soft, pastel green background color to more easily distinguish them from deceased persons for people with normal sight (because it's not easy to see the italics at a glance, to be honest). That way, background color can be used as a "supplemental visual cue" as the manual permits, without it being garish and overcolored either. Thoughts? Other suggestions? Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 02:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding a background colour to living entries because I agree that in large tables, italics are not so easy to see. However, I'm not sure that green is the best colour, plus we'd want to be sure that the colour adheres to MOS:COLOUR so some figuring out is needed. Because this change would affect more than just this one article, would you mind if we had the discussion about colour for living entries over at WT:WOP? That way, other interested editors can participate. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think using italics is a bad idea -- just have a column called "Living?" and have Y or N, or have a death date column, which if blank means the person's still alive. Other than that, there's nothing wrong with color, if it's redundant. However, having said that, I think there are much bigger changes in the wind for WOP which make it prudent to leave these kind of details on hold for a while -- right now it's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. EEng (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Inclusion of supercentenarians with unknown exact birth dates

I suggest that living Japanese supercentenarians with unknown exact birth dates be listed in the living section. While the GRG has a policy of apparently ignoring Japanese cases with incomplete dates of birth, I don't see any reason to omit them from this article if we know they are at least 110 and there is recent confirmation of their survival. There are currently a fair amount of Japanese supercentenarians who are known from prefecture reports (which sometimes lists only age or year of birth rather than exact date of birth) who are omitted from the living table as it currently stands.

I propose the following formatting be used for incomplete cases:

Name	Sex	Birth date	Age as of 24 November 2024	Prefecture of birth	Prefecture of residence
Tsurue Amou	F	September 1903 - September 1904	Between 121 years, 84 days and	Unknown	Tokushima

Incomplete cases would be listed on the main list (rather than a separate table), with their latest possible birth date being the position they would be put in.

--T Kanagawa T (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oldest Japanese person by prefecture...of birth?

Why do we list the oldest Japanese person by prefecture of birth, rather than death? First of all, for many cases we don't know the prefecture of birth, but in virtually every case, we know the prefecture of death. The data would be a lot more complete if we listed the oldest by prefecture of death. Secondly, when you think about where a supercentenarian is "from", I think that people tend to think of their most recent residence. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It's just trivia, and duplicates info found on other lists. It also appears to be quite incomplete. I removed the whole section. Legacypac (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for Merger: This list is nearly 100% duplication of List of supercentenarians from Asia

Since 100% of the "verified" old people in Asia live in Japan, there is no need for this page. It should be merged and redirected to List of supercentenarians from Asia as per this discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians from Asia Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Update following death of Yasutaro Koide on 19 January

The article needs to be updated following the death of the world's oldest man, Yasutaro Koide on 19 January 2016. A Japanese news source can be found here, and no doubt English-language news reports will appear shortly. --DAJF (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Koto Okubo

Shouldn't she have her own article? The second oldest person usually does, and she's also the oldest woman. I seem to recall that at one point she did? Why the change? Silenceisgod (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

She did previously. She's probably not otherwise notable, and/or the article didn't contain enough "meat". See the hatnote on this page and the linked discussion. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Now we have a photo of Mrs. Okubo - so can I restore her article? --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please review the problems raised in the most recent AFD discussion where the consensus was to merge. A picture alone won't address those problems. Ravensfire (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like it was a 50/50 vote there with no clear winner. Besides, her death was reported in multiple sources and in my opinion, anyone who reaches the top 100 oldest people ever is certainly worthy of an article. For instance, Fannie Thomas being the oldest validated person ever at the time of her death is certainly notable, and I plan on restoring her article as she had a good deal of news coverage, as did Augusta Holtz. Really, "World's Oldest Person" titleholders being notable is a no-brainer. Just Google Misao Okawa and you'll see what I mean. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Tane Yonekura

There is currently no evidence that Tane Yonekura is still alive, on the 110 club anyway. So shouldn't she be moved to limbo? Timothy McGuire (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No. The 110 Club is not a reliable source. If you want her removed then provide a reliable source that says she's no longer living. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Japanese supercentenarians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111204222253/http://www.47news.jp/CN/201112/CN2011120201001661.html to http://www.47news.jp/CN/201112/CN2011120201001661.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Japanese supercentenarians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151110060242/http://www.pref.shiga.lg.jp/e/lakadia/koureisya.html to http://www.pref.shiga.lg.jp/e/lakadia/koureisya.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610165926/http://www.grg.org/Adams/Deaths2008.HTM to http://www.grg.org/Adams/Deaths2008.HTM
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.startribune.com/17321729.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121231071459/http://www.sankeibiz.jp/econome/news/120914/ecc1209141455001-n2.htm to http://www.sankeibiz.jp/econome/news/120914/ecc1209141455001-n2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Chiko Mikyo

She is the oldest person behind Nabi Tamiji.She is also the fourth oldest japanesse person ever.Her birthdate is on May 2 1901.She became the second oldest on September 15 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.40.112 (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Deleted the comment by the person who uses sockpuppet and blocked.

• 24.190.40.112, You must apologize to all the people you've slander, includes oldest people and wikipedians. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

List gets bigger and bigger, then...

...we'll have to split this article into 2 articles; one has the tables and one has the biographies. Any thoughts on what the best thing to do is?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Lede section rewrite

Today I made an effort to re-write the lede section, along the lines of the new ones at American, French and Italian lists. My changes were reverted by TFBCT1 with edit summary: Revisions have no forseable improvement.[1] Now, here are a few things that I would contend my new version did improve:

• The prose flows more logically, first defining what we mean by a "Japanese supercentenarian", then giving a well-sourced estimate of their numbers, and noting they are mostly women. Then we introduce the currently oldest person in that group, mentioning she is also the oldest human in the world. We mention the Japanese man and woman who lived the longest, noting that the man was also the longest living male worldwide.

Why do you say these edits were not improvements, and what do you have to suggest that would be better? Comments from other editors welcome. — JFG ^talk 20:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@TFBCT1: You said you "only have a problem with the changes in the lede".[2] What is it that disturbs you, and how can we improve it together? — JFG ^talk 05:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I support JFG's version, for the reasons he stated above. His version has a good, clear description of the article subject, highlights the names people are most likely to be looking for, has a relevant image, and avoids veering into trivial cruft, which was not the case with what was there before. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I have one major problem with your proposed lede changes. You take specified information regarding Jiroemon Kimura and replace it with vague, indiscriminate information. ie) He died 06/12/2013 at age 116 years, 54 days to he died "over the age of 116." I'm assuming this was done because there is a question of whether he was born as per family 03/19/1897 or as validated 04/19/1897. As the oldest validated man ever, his information should be exact, not proximate. If that is changed, although I see no pressing need to change the lede as it is; I would not be opposed.TFBCT1 (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

If that's the only issue, I'm happy to add Mr. Kimura's exact age in years and days, according to the validated information. I do not think we should add his birth and death dates, because that would make the text a little too heavy (that is the main reason I previously used "over 116" only). Full dates are in the list and in his dedicated article, that readers can access with a click. — JFG ^talk 07:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 08:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Births after April 1907

The list of living supercentenarians currently stops at people born in April 1907. Why, I have no idea. Can somebody find a source for "younger" people so that we can keep filling up the list as time advances? TFBCT1 perhaps? — JFG ^talk 07:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not your "go to" for answers and please stop pinging me.TFBCT1 (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I was just calling upon your expertise, in order to expand this list with newer entries (contrary to your assumption that I'm only here to reduce coverage). Won't ping again unless replying directly to a question of yours. — JFG ^talk 00:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've locked this page for three days in order to stop the back and forth reverts and edit warring. @TFBCT1 and Newshunter12: please discuss the changes here and get some sort of consensus for either including or removing the content. See these guidelines for achieving consensus in a content dispute.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This applies to your edit warring at Oldest people and List of oldest living people as well. You will both end up blocked if you don't stop reverting and use the relevant talk pages.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jezebel's Ponyo Thank you for your intervention and I am sorry that it came to this. I attempted before and after the reverting to discuss this issue at Talk:List of oldest living people but the other editor has so far been refusing to discuss or cooperate and even lied in his edit summaries that I reverted him three times, when it was twice each. It seems he wants to try to get me blocked (he holds a grudge from past disputes), when ironically he is the one whom came closest to breaking the three revert rule. Again, I apologize that this happened and took up some of your time. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I have a new person to add the list: Katsuko Nakajima, born 8 April 1907; I would appreciate the page to be unlocked. I would assume that edit-warring people have heard the message and will refrain from further disruption. — JFG ^talk 02:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Kama Chinen age disputed?

@TFBCT1: You recently removed the picture of Kama Chinen, stating: Removing Kama Chinen's picture from header in that she is listed as 'disputed' on many countries wiki pages and 'possibly disputed' on GRG's table C. If her age is really disputed, perhaps she should be unnumbered? I looked at the current version of table C (July 2018): Chinen is listed in italics, but the table authors do not say what this means (they just say: "bold=new age record", nothing about italics), and there is no footnote mentioning her name linked to an age dispute. Some other entries are in italics: Johanna Booysen, Elizabeth Watkins, and Nabi Tajima; does that mean their age is disputed too? About Watkins, there is a footnote stating "Case under investigation. Some records indicate she may have been under 110." No footnote about Booysen, Chinen and Tajima. Where can we learn more about these disputes? Other wikis are not valid sources themselves, but perhaps they can point us to some sources documenting the dispute. Have you seen anything more precise? — JFG ^talk 15:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I indicated Kama Chinen's age is "possibly under question" and is not a proper choice for a header, Chiyono Hasegawa would be a better option. Yes, the italics, indicates that the age is under question, but as most things with the GRG, they are not up to date. Nabi Tajima's case has been fully accepted and verified by Guinness World Records and is not disputed. Johanna Booysen and Elizabeth Watkins are not significant cases. And Kama Chinen's case has been listed in this manner since 2014, so who knows if its up to date. The U.S. pages are not in the habit of identifying cases that "may" be under question. Point in case, many countries indicate Lucy Hannah and Matthew Beard as disputed and do not include them in their results- the U.S. pages accept them as verified until otherwise stated.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion: I have introduced a picture of Chiyono Hasegawa taken close to her 114th birthday. Kama Chinen looks legit enough per various sources including BBC, so I'm keeping her numbered. — JFG ^talk 11:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete Chronological list of the oldest living person

The Chronological list of the oldest living person in Japan needs to be re-deleted because it is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:SYNTHESIS of original research. This list has been cobbled together over many years from a range of sources, mainly people pulled from GRG tables, and is clearly a syntheses of original research. The list is also indiscriminate because while individual people are labeled the oldest person in Japan by the government and the press, there is not a source proving that such a compilation as found here is a notable topic, and not a passing fancy turned into fancruft. It's not a notable list like a list of Japanese Emperors. This section needs to be deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Fully support removal. A good chunk are sourced to two tables which haven't been updated in over a decade (one was last updated in 2001...) and are bound to be full of errors. The recent ones are unsourced and are most likely going to be referenced to this table which is WP:OR because it only tells us their name, age and country and not that someone was oldest from death of previous. Agree with above and they also appear to be mainly WP:TRIVIA. The other country chronological lists aren't much better either and should be removed. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

To prove those tables are full of errors, they list Shigechiyo Izumi and Kamato Hongo who were later debunked and removed from GWR and the GRG. This pretty much says it all. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless an WP:RS can be presented that specifically discusses these lists of "titleholders", their content is the very definition of WP:SYNTHESIS. Interesting fancruft which does not meet Wikipedia standards. — JFG ^talk 06:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is the argument that the information has been synthesized: A + B, therefore C, which it is not, or is it that it does not meet wikipedia's standard for inclusion in this article?TFBCT1 (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

As has been explained here by three separate editors, this list fails on both of those grounds and needs to be removed. This is clearly a case of WP:SYNTHESIS (many different, often unreliable sources have been cobbled together through OR to form this section) and the section is WP:INDISCRIMINATE fancruft. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@TFBCT1: Indeed, to keep such a list on Wikipedia, we would need to exhibit WP:RS sources that publish the list and/or that talk about that list. If we just have Wikipedians piece together the list from individual entries, that's WP:SYNTHESIS, and possibly WP:OR for some cases (when we deduce something from other information, e.g. "nobody else was named oldest during time period X, but we know Mrs. Fukuoka Resident was xxx years old at time X, therefore let's put her on the list"). There was a similar debate about the list of most-followed Twitter accounts, which was kept because (a) the full list is published and updated regularly,[3] and (b) numerous sources, independent of each other, have discussed Twitter rankings over many years. If you could help identify such sources for the oldest Japanese or the oldest French over time, they would not only validate the existence of the list, but also help improve the quality and verifiability of the article. — JFG ^talk 09:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that these sections are major components on the oldest people page and are certainly not considered indiscriminate nor fancruft. And your argument for synthesis fails here as it would on the oldest people page. It sounds to me like we have people who just "don't like" the topic of longevity and will go to all lengths to whittle away at it.TFBCT1 (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Quite the opposite: like you, I am very interested in the subject matter, and I'm working diligently to improve our series of articles. Regarding your claim that the "argument for synthesis fails here", that's easy to settle: show us a list of "chronology of the oldest person in country X" published in a reliable source, we'll cite that in the article, and the issue will be resolved once and for all. I suppose that the worldwide list at the Oldest people can be validly excerpted from some published list, and that case should be made on that page. For national lists, I have searched the Internet and have failed to find any such list. I would be very happy if we found one. — JFG ^talk 13:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Repeat. I'd like to point out that these sections are major components on the oldest people page and are certainly not considered indiscriminate nor fancruft. JFG, I'm not addressing you personally and it's not helpful when you reply as if I am.

Your argument is pure WP:ILIKEIT. Please either provide WP:RS sources showing a long chronology list of the oldest people in Japan is notable, or the section ought to be deleted at once. I will add that a list for the oldest in the whole world is not the same as lists for single countries, so your apples to oranges argument holds no weight here, in my opinion. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, per the reasoning above I support removal. To further elaborate, why use 1955? What sources define 1955 as The Magical Cutoff Year, prior to which some old person was not the "titleholder" and only attained the status of "really old person"? It's an arbitrary cutoff time for an arbitrarily defined geographical area, and no source has in-depth discussion of that particular intersection; therefore, to do so on Wikipedia is a novel synthesis in direct contravention or basic policy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Reasoning with people who "just don't like it" is literally like beating a dead horse. Clearly as per usual, I will receive no support here. It's alarming the way you individuals swarm together to destruct a page. In my opinion, you haven't provided a valid argument, but with that said you're just going to do whatever you want until the entire subject of longevity has been removed from wikipedia. I don't have the time nor the energy.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Nobody wants to "remove the entire subject of longevity from Wikipedia". Rather, any coverage of this subject matter should abide by general guidelines about encyclopedic content. No need to feel adversarial about the current trend. And again, if you can point to appropriate sources for national lists, they are most welcome. — JFG ^talk 04:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• No RS discuss the progression of oldest to oldest person in Japan. The occurance of such people at different dates is pure coincidence, unlike office holders where there is clear succession. They don't know each other. No one elects or appoints these people. We don't need to keep this unreliable unconfirmable information on Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous woman

A woman living in Fukuoka prefecture claims to have been born on 4 may 1904. I don't have an article as a source just this discussion. However, the source mentioned in this discussion doesn't show any Anonymous woman born on this date. So I'm wondering if this is just a prank? (Comment updated 00:18, 4 April 2018) https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/the110club/n-t19080-s465.html Timothy McGuire (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That forum is not a reliable source, as anyone can tell who spends a few minutes browsing threads (amd forums are not RS anyway) Legacypac (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Emigrants

@Legacypac: As I wrote in my revert, readers interested in Japanese supercentenarians can't guess that other such people live elsewhere. However, I do agree that the separate section for emigrants is an arbitrary categorization. While separating men from women can be justified due to the large difference in life expectancy, therefore in representativity of the sample, I can imagine no such justification for nationality at birth, especially given the vagaries of historical territorial and political changes (not in Japan, but see the Polish case for a striking example – Ireland also comes to mind, as all "Irish emigrants" were British citizens at birth). My suggestion would be to merge the emigrants list with the main list, and just note their places of birth and death or residence, as we already do for everyone. Any "young" emigrants would rightfully be omitted. The remaining individuals would still be duplicated due to their dual citizenship, but that's ok. — JFG ^talk 08:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Being born in X but dying in Y is not defining at all. An American is an American for example, and many Americans came from elsewhere. Merge away. Legacypac (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 21:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Lack of data

It is time to trim the list of living Japanese to only people over age 112 (15 ppl at the moment). We simply don't have accurate data for the 110 amd 111 year olds and this is no longer that impressive according to what I've seen about the number of Japanese people over 110, The GRG has stopped verifying people under 112 so anyone we add under 112 is whoever we randomly discover and can source based on whatever. We are holding this up as a ranking, which we know to be quite incomplete. Further a person needs to reach nearly 113 to get on the top 100 oldest Japanese list so listing people who are less, often a lot less, than the 100 oldest on record is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of partial information. Legacypac (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A person needs to reach nearly 111 just to get on the List of living supercentenarians article which also tells us there's an estimated 150 to 600 living 110+ year olds. That and the fact that the GRG have verified over two thousand 110+ year olds and are no longer interested in verifying someone until they're 112+ so I support either trimming to top 100 or removing those below 112. We don't need to list potentially 600 people just because they've reached 110. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

As noted in earlier discussions, we have a huge gap in living people born in 1906, so that age 112 is under-represented among the list of living (1 aged 112 only, vs 15 aged 111 and 11 aged 113). I would support trimming the list of living to people aged 112+, but that still does not solve the lack of data. — JFG ^talk 21:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I also support trimming the living section to only individuals 112+ for the well stated reasons above. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Before we trim the list, we should strive to find data on people who are currently 112. Otherwise it will look really strange. — JFG ^talk 01:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Tajima disputed?

With this edit, BHB95 stated that Nabi Tajima's age is disputed according to GRG table C. Is this because her name is listed in italics there? In that case other people such as Kama Chinen should be listed as disputed as well. However, the meaning of italics entries is not clearly stated in the GRG table as cited. In my opinion we would need another source that explains why and how a person's age is disputed. I move to restore Nabi Tajima to normal status. — JFG ^talk 22:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Drop in Japanese Supercentenarians for Year 1906

Does anyone know what accounts for that dramatic drop in Japanese supercentenarians for the year 1906? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TFBCT1 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Certainly nothing more than randomness in statistics. Count years from July instead of January, and you'll see 2 people born in 1902–03, 1 person in 1903–04, 3 people in 1904–05, 8 in 1905–06, and more than 12 in 1906–07 (our list is truncated at April 1907). That looks more "normal"… — JFG ^talk 04:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way, why is the list of living supercentenarians truncated at people born in April 1907? Can't we find a source listing all people over 110 currently alive in Japan? — JFG ^talk 04:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I am looking for a sound response as to why there is an 80% decrease in Japanese supercenarians born in the year 1906 as opposed to any other year. The above rubbish does not address the topic. Anyone else?TFBCT1 (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Not an appropraite subject for this talkpage as per the usual guidelines. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The above "rubbish" is most probably the correct explanation. But indeed, that's WP:NOTFORUM territory, so let's stop. — JFG ^talk 07:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't have expected anything less. An actual longevity topic not a side bar on how to chop the hell out of a longevity page and no responses from any of the usual suspects.TFBCT1 (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure looks like randomness. Legacypac (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove separate list of living people

The separate list of living supercentenarians overlaps in part with people who are also included in the top 100 oldest Japanese ever. Besides, we have a sourcing problem for the "living" list, because on the one hand GRG only validates people over 112, and on the other hand, the under-112 part of the list is sourced to occasional reports on oldest residents by prefecture, so that we are never up-to-date, and we are likely missing many individuals, for example the #2 and #3 supercentenarians in each prefecture. This situation is reflected in the fact that we currently list nobody between the ages of 110 years 0 days and 110 years 259 days, yet statistically there must be dozens of living Japanese people in that age range. Consequently this list is arbitrary and synthesis, therefore I suggest removing it. Living people are already well highlighted in the top 100 list, and that's all we need. — JFG ^talk 07:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes the lack of proper data leads to an inaccurate picture. We know there are 110 year olds but getting to 110 in Japan is not that big a deal so no one really tracks and publishes the data in a form we can use (ie no reliable sources so not notable). We also know there has long been data reporting problems in Japan around the aged, see Sogen Kato and [4]. Therefore attempting to show a top 100 alive is a fools errand. Legacypac (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

As a confirmation that we are missing a lot of people, the citation about Tari Chiba's 112th birthday states that she is the oldest in Hokkaido and the 22nd oldest in all of Japan. I have re-numbered the rankings accordingly, and assuming that our top 10 is correct, our list is missing 9 people older than Ms Chiba, and probably dozens more younger than her. — JFG ^talk 01:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with removal, for the reasons above and the fact that (the GRG aside) no sources make any particular distinction based on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 05:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Finding more people born 1906+

Our table of the 100 oldest Japanese people ever is still grossly inaccurate because people born in 1906 and later are under-represented. We currently list 5 people born in 1900, 6 in 1901, 8 in 1902, 8 in 1903 (1 alive), 12 in 1904 (1 alive), 11 in 1905 (9 alive), and only one in 1906 (alive). Statistically there must be more living Japanese born in 1906, all of them now over 112, including some of them aged 113, and perhaps some dead and unnoticed yet. In terms of the current age reached by living people, we have a huge gap of 268 days between Misao Uemura aged 113 years, 171 days, and Motome Hirata aged 112 years, 258 days. @高木あゆみ, Afasmit, BHB95, Born in Decade X, CommanderLinx, Crveni5, DerbyCountyinNZ, Dorintosh, Former Martin C. Barell School Student, Georgia guy, Gianluca91, HarleyOpenRoad, Ignoto2, Jawaalk, Jay D. Easy, Kintetsubuffalo, Legacypac, Newshunter12, Pkbwcgs, SergeWoodzing, SomeRandomPerson001, TeriEmbrey, The Blade of the Northern Lights, Timothy McGuire, and TFBCT1: I am calling all interested editors to find sourced information to fill the gap. Perhaps native Japanese speakers could set up a news alert for any article celebrating a 112th or 113th birthday? We are looking for people born in Meiji (明治) years 39 or 40 (明治３９年 or 明治４０年). — JFG ^talk 15:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

In general, try to use GRG, Guinness World Records, the International Database of Longevity, or another appropriate source to find any. Georgia guy (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I brought up this topic of discussion on 10 November 2018(see above). I was then explicitly dismissed by several editors stating that this topic was “not appropriate” for this talk page and “obviously due to randomness.” What exactly has changed since I first addressed this issue?TFBCT1 (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@TFBCT1 The difference between your earlier topic and JFG's is that your topic was a forum to discuss theories as to why there are so few 1906 SC's from Japan, while his is just pointing out demographic statistics and calling for editors to help find relevant data he feels must exist in RS.

@JFG No one born in 1907 or the final months of 1906 is even old enough to be on this list. Not to stray into forum territory, but it's worth pointing out that the year 1906 had the lowest number of Japanese births in the 20th century until the odd year of 1966 and Japan's birth implosion in the 1980's. There were over 100,000 fewer Japanese births in 1906 then in both 1901 and 1902. 1907 had over 220,000 more births then the year before, hence RS data picks back up again there. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUM warning! – Interesting remark about 1906 and 1966 seeing a drop in births, One explanation for the 1906 drop may be the Russo-Japanese War that ended in September 1905, so that absent or dead soldiers induced a lack of births well into 1906, and the post-war "return to life" may explain the extra births in 1907. But then why don't we see a drop of births in 1905, as the war had been going on since February 1904? Perhaps we can add a more esoteric explanation, which would encompass 1906 and 1966: there is a cultural belief that children born in the year of the Fire Horse are going to cause trouble for themselves and their family, especially if they are girls. I would not be surprised that some Japanese couples would have consciously avoided bearing children during those years…

Still, I believe the more pedestrian explanation is that we lack sources. In particular, due to sourcing in occasional publications of "oldest people from prefecture X" by the authorities, we must be missing several people who would be old enough for the top 100 national list, but were never the oldest person in their prefecture, and died unreported while still #2 or #3 locally. — JFG ^talk 19:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@JFG Fascinating ideas about the war and the Zodiac playing a role in demographics. However, new information does appear to show you are likely wrong about a lack of data playing a role in the alleged dearth of 1906's. Digging on gerontology wikia, which takes in every claim they can get there hands on, their lists show there is no dearth in Japanese SC's born in 1906. There are 38 incomplete claims (exact birth or death date missing - some might have been 1905) and 28 full claims for Japanese born in 1906. For 1907, 58 incomplete and 48 complete. For 1904, 32 incomplete and 31 complete. For 1902, 23 incomplete and 29 complete. Given my info about births, there were more 1906's who made it/were recorded then in previous years, and a surge of those born in the larger birth year of 1907. It just happens this time almost all of the 1906's have died before reaching this list. There weren't fewer of them, at least not based on available data. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Strangely enough, in our list of living supercentenarians in the United States, there is an almost one-year gap between Iris Westman born 28 August 1905 and Mazie Ford born 28 June 1906. — JFG ^talk 00:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is not appropriate for this talk page. The talk page is for improving the article, NOT for a general discussion of the topic, which is what most of this discussion is. Lack of sources is not Wikipedia's concern, that there is potentially a lack of such sources might be included in the opening paragraph, provided it is not OR. Appropriate discussions for this talk page include criteria for inclusion, the reliability/date of specific cases and/or general sources, the accuracy of translations etc. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Why doesn't Nabi Tajima have a separate page? Lost/lacking entries?

Looking into the rest of the 10 oldest people in the world, every single person who is the record holder for the oldest, verified person ever born in their country has a separate article. All but one. Nabi Tajima. Jeanne Calment, Sarah Knauss, Emma Morano, Violet Brown, Mario Capovilla have their own independent pages. The record holders for Britain, also have their own separate page. Is there no standard editorial policy, or have editorial staff not made a consensus decision about how to organize these entry sections.

Also the lack of any entry for Chiyo Miyako and Misao Okawa is perturbing, given that they are two of the 10 oldest verified people to have ever lived. Anyone trying to amass statistics or do a cursory check of information on gerontology and extreme-ages will not have all the information that is out there. There is no harm in amassing the information from news articles and the like to keep a consistent record of at least basic information of the sort that might be useful for limited demographic study.

Jawaalk (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Some of the longest-living persons used to have articles that were deleted because there was a lack of any well-sourced significant information about their lives. Just getting old is not notable in itself. Essential information from Tajima's article was merged into the Japanese list, per this discussion. Miyako's article was deleted twice and redirected to the list. Okawa's name was redirected here as well. Feel free to further debate inclusion criteria at WT:LONGEVITY. — JFG ^talk 09:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

JFG ^talk 09:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean a lack of any well-sourced translated information? Because there was information on Okawa and Miyako in Japanese language sources. I don't really know if I see eye to eye with the other assertion that just getting old is not notable in itself. It most certainly is. It's extremely rare. Much rarer than becoming a pro-baseball player, or becoming a State Senator in rural Kansas. And my comment was more or less a veiled statement about the seeming racism of a bunch of Western countries longevity holders all maintaining separate articles, and Tajima's merged into a long list. Either pick an editorial policy and apply it to every page, or don't just go after the pages of the Japanese record holder. Furthermore, it surprises me there is such a war to constantly delete or remove any small articles about supercentenarians, particularly those who feature in the top 100 oldest people ever officially verified by public records in human history, as this is, in fact, useful and notable information. Nabi Tajima could get featured in Guinness, her death written up in every major newspaper in the world, and be the third oldest person ever verified and have her page nominated repeatedly for deletion? It's quite off-putting, especially when the only thing people are attempting to do is keep very basic demographic and sociological information compiled (lists are fine for this as well), on very rare occurrences of extreme age, either for curiosity's sakes or because they are studying public health policy, extreme aging, nursing, genetics, or demographics. Its not substantially less relevant information than is provided by the thousands of pages dedicated to baseball players dating back to the 1920s and 1930s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawaalk (talk • contribs) 00:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Century

How come it states that Nabi Tajima was born in the 19th century? 1900 was the 20th century, wasn't it? 83.185.95.7 (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope. 1900 is 1900s, but is 19th century. 1901 is 1900s and 20th century. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous of Fukuoka.

She died in 2018--General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source that states that she has? Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)