Talk:Jiroemon Kimura/Archive 1

And who is the second oldest man in Japan?

Has anybody an idea?

Tanekichi Oonishi-15 February 1900 65.0.27.76 (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As of 11 september Kimura is the only living male supercent. in Japan, so there is no info yet who is the second oldest. --Leoj83 (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah we'll need to find out until September of this year who the second-oldest living man in Japan is. However, it's almost certain that the second-oldest living man in Japan was born in either 1901 or 1902. Futurist110 (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone is looking at this topic anymore, but the second oldest man living in Japan as of November 2, 2012 is Makaru Nakanishi who was born on December 15, 1901. The third oldest man living in Japan is Yoshio Nakagawa who is only a few days younger than Makaru; being born on December 19, 1901. As for dead male supercentenarians living in Japan that were younger than Jiroemon and became supercentenarians after November 1, 2009; Tanekichi Onishi was the only person that would qualify, being born on February 15, 1900 and dying on September 11, 2011. --Thebirdlover (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC) and 06:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Year link

Could the editor who insisted on this link (Ryoung) please explain what, exactly, in the article 1897 satisfies WP's requirements for relevance and utility for the reader? Or is it just a magic blue carpet to encourage browsing? I note that there are already several (long piped) links in the vicinity that we do not want to dilute. Tony (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the year link does not signficantly aid readers' understanding of the topic. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You two are always on cohoots with each other, and have been for more than a year. Further, the edits to my talk page amounted to examples of BULLYING as Wiki editors are free to apply the rules of their choice to their own page.

If you don't think the link is meaningful for you...DON'T CLICK ON IT!

Ryoung122 14:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"You two are always on cohoots with each other ..." – aside from the bad-faith CABAL-like accusations, that has no bearing on the arguement

"Further, the edits to my talk page amounted to examples of BULLYING as Wiki editors are free to apply the rules of their choice to their own page" I'm not sure what in our comments, which were quite civil, constituted bullying.

"If you don't think the link is meaningful for you...DON'T CLICK ON IT! " Sorry, that's not a rationale for keeping/adding links to an article. Do you have an argument based on the guidelines at WP:LINKING, WP:MOS, and WP:MOSNUM? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"..DON'T CLICK ON IT". Unfortunately, this is not an argument that carries much weight on WP. We are a consensus-driven project, and accordingly we have derived guidelines to benefit our readers. Like it or not, in this case consensus has indicated that such items should not be linked. Example reasons include: over-linking devalues higher quality links, and that WP is not a collection of trivia. Are you aware that the minor number of people who find this page and want to find out what else happened in 1897 can simply enter "1897" in the search box and click "Go"? It's not a stretch to imagine that they could figure that out; is it? Your argument also has the drawback of encouraging vastly more links than we currently have because "people don't need to click on them do they?".  HWV258.  23:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that you use the term "consensus-driven". Wikipedia is about consensus-BUILDING (peaceful resolution of conflict through mediatorial efforts), not aggressive, chess-like attempts to project one's own views without even discussing the issue first.

Also, links are not "higher quality" and "lower quality" (all links are the same). Some links have more relevance/use than others. I agree that too many links can make it more difficult to focus on the most-useful links--but clearly, in an article about "Japan's oldest man" who happens to also be the "last verified man from the year 1897", the year of birth is, in fact, one of those links which have more relevance.Ryoung122 14:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

i think you two are sock puppets. 198.175.205.251 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your evidence being... Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You two are always on cohoots with each other, and have been for more than a year. Further, the edits to my talk page amounted to examples of BULLYING as Wiki editors are free to apply the rules of their choice to their own page. as Robert Young has pointed out. 74.249.138.19 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon, I think you need to read up on what a sock-puppet is. I can't help but find it suspicious that you randomly came to this talk page and accused Tony and me of being sockpuppets even though you have never participated in any discussions with any of us three (RYoung122 being the third) ... care to explain? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"...the edits to my talk page...". Hmmm.  HWV258.  22:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

An unfounded allegation by an anonymous editor—how cowardly. Whoever you are, how about addressing the issues in question (or doing something constructive at WP—elsewhere)?  HWV258.  22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And yet I would welcome a sockpuppet investigation; I have nothing to hide. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, back on topic, the link has been removed again. Seeing that the RfC supports this delinking, and no consensus or justification has emerged for re-linking the year, I would strongly encourage Ryoung122 not to revert. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I had no qualms in removing the link as there was overwhelming consensus to not link dates simply because they correspond to years of birth or death. To that there is no debate. If someone wishes to start a new discussion to refine the policy of date linking, then off to Wikipedia:Linking we all go.  HWV258.  22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

hes notable for living long, whats wrong with a year being a link, why do you care, some may be interested in it, and Robert Young is a lot smarter than you two combined. 74.249.138.19 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon, please refrain from the personal attacks comments. Do you know RYoung122 personally? Comments like that indicate that you have contributed to Wikipedia before and are editing anonymously in violation of WP:ILLEGIT. I assume you know such behavior could lead to a block. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"...a lot smarter than you two combined". Perhaps (but not yet demonstrated); however is he "a lot smarter" than the 208 editors who overwhelmingly indicated (based on the text in the option they supported) that dates of birth and death should not be linked?  HWV258.  23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Did all 208 editors vote for only one policy, or did simply a majority or even just a plurality of the 208 favor a certain version of it? It is not clear what you mean. But even if there were 208 editors in favor of the policy AS WRITTEN, it doesn't really apply in this case because it was intended as a general guideline, while the rationale for year linking for oldest persons is different. I note that history tends to record "last living veterans," "oldest Confederate widows," "last Titanic survivors" etc. Should we say that the article on the last Titanic survivor shouldn't have a link to the year of the sinking (1912)? Answer me that.Ryoung122 14:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Easy—no it shouldn't. There should be a link to the Titanic article which in turn contains all the relevant information. (Interesting to note that the Titanic article doesn't link 1912.) As far as I can tell, the "while the rationale for year linking for oldest persons is different" concept is your own. Why do you feel you have the right to over-ride the consensus achieved by so many other editors? As I've mentioned before, feel free to try to have the policy altered by taking up the debate at Wikipedia:Linking. By the way, the RfC process is not a "vote" (that's an important point that I feel you are missing in this discussion).  HWV258.  22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Those who have been on Wikipedia for a while should know that one rule never applies to everything. This guideline is very recent and so exceptions to the rule have not been officially established. The consensus was to remove unnecessary links on dates - not all date links. It's fairly common on news reports for supercentenarians to list the events that took place in their year of birth. Links are what build Wikipedia and these links should be kept as they are both relevant and provide context to the article. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus here is clear that we should exclude the links. Cunard (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, consensus decided that dates should not be linked unless there's a specific reason to do so. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, consensus was reached based on the following text:

Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is

germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an

important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. For instance,

Timeline of World War II (1942) may be linked to from another article about WWII, and so too may 1787

in science when writing about a particular development on the metric system in that year. However, the

years of birth and death of architect Philip C. Johnson should not be linked, because little, if any,

of the contents of 1906 and 2005 are germane to either Johnson or to architecture.

That is so clear that it's hard to believe that we are still discussing this.  HWV258.  00:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news site, and I do not think these links provide context to the article. SiameseTurtle, can you give examples of how a year link significantly improves readers' understanding of this article? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. As the last living man born in 1897, readers might want to see more information about the time he was born in. Reporting an age is just one thing. To go one further is to actually explain the eras that are linked together by this man's longevity. And as I said before, the guideline is very recent and has not yet allowed for exceptions. Wikipedia doesn't grow without links, and I don't understand the notion that we should remove a useful link simply because a new rule says otherwise. There are exceptions to every rule and according to WP:IAR, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". This rule is preventing us improving the article by adding context. Furthermore, I never said that Wikipedia was a new site - I was merely stating that multiple reliable sources also like to add this information to their articles - presumably because they feel that it improves them. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"...readers might want to see more information about the time he was born in"—thanks for focusing on another problem in linking to specific years. Have you looked at the 1897 page? Here are the links found on that page that relate to the time around the birth of Mr Kimura:

April 5 – The Ordinance of April 5, equalizing German and Czech in Bohemia,

          is signed in Austria-Hungary (see Count Kasimir Felix Badeni).
April 24 – The first ever Challenge Cup final is played at Headingley.
April 27 – Grant's Tomb is dedicated in New York.
May 1 – The Tennessee Centennial Exposition opens in Nashville, for 6 months,

        illuminated by many electric lights.
May 10 – The Snaefell Mining Disaster occurs in the Isle of Man.
May 16 – The Teatro Massimo is built in Palermo, the largest opera theatre in

         Italy, the 3rd largest in Europe.
May 18 – Dracula, a novel by Irish author Bram Stoker, is published.
May 19 – Oscar Wilde is released from prison.

How does the above "contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter" of Jiroemon Kimura? I could be more sympathetic to a link to 1890s or 1900s as I guess it could be argued that those pages define an era when Mr Kimura grew up (and therefore might give background to influences on his life), but the link to 1897 is pure trivia. (Please note: I didn't cherry-pick the items in the above list; and in fact it is interesting to note that neither "Japan" or "Asia" are mentioned in the list of items on the 1897 page.)  HWV258.  01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. Someone famous only for age is a symbol of the past. At the highest ages, the difference between one year and ten years is huge. It's like saying an NBA game should be won by 10 points, not one.

Further, the article about the person isn't really about the person except as an individual example as a connection to the past. It does not matter if the 1897 article has topics directly related to Mr. Kimura or not (although one must criticize such an article for having no mention of Japan or Asia, if that's true). What matters is that such as link allows a reader to find out about "the world in 1897." Is that too hard to understand? A reader could click on the link and realize that this man was born the same year as Faulkner (an author noted for saying "the past is never really past"). How delicious is that irony? Yet, for some Wiki meter maids, acting as virtual policemen while reducing the functionality, usefulness, and even quality of Wikipedia is more important than actually considering whether they might not be ENTIRELY right.

In China, it is said that "Mao was 70 percent right, 30 percent wrong". Unlike the Western either/or binary, the Eastern concept of yin-yang allows for different thought vectors. You should consider using them.Ryoung122 14:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I thought it was really clear the way I explained it. It's not a question of being "famous" for a year (or a decade). It's about what relevance the page at the other end of the link provides to the current article. I demonstrated above that the information at the other end of the 1897 link is irrelevant to the information contained in the article on Mr Kimura. This is a point that most of the 208 editors who chose Option 1 in the RfC also realised. The information at 1897 is nothing but a collection of trivia as far as Mr Kimura is concerned. That really is the simple concept that drove the results of the RfC debate.

The point I made in regards to the decade articles (1890s and 1900s) is that at least those articles provide some context for the era in which Mr Kimura was born and grew up. The "NBA game" (horribly extended) analogy shows a lack of understanding of this point.

"...find out about 'the world in 1897.' Is that too hard to understand?"—no, but there is nothing to understand. Could you please explain to all of us why a link to 1897 for a person aged 113 is more relevant than a link to 1897 in an article about a person who was born in 1897 and died in 1967 (in terms of finding out about the world way back then)? You've just provided the argument as to why every birth-year should be linked (something the community has overwhelmingly rejected).

"...allows for different thought vectors. You should consider using them". The different "thought vectors" were all clearly considered and debated in-and-around the RfC community process. I'm sorry that you don't like the outcome, but nevertheless, there was a consensus-driven outcome. Based on that consensus, please stop linking the years of birth in WP articles. If you wish to debate a refinement to the current consensus policy, please take up the issue at Wikipedia:Linking. Surely it shouldn't be a difficult exercise for you to make your point there? Don't you believe the other editors there would be smart enough to understand your argument? Would you like me to start the debate there for you?

(As an aside, could you please use the indenting mechanism on each of your paragraphs? It's simply confusing to suddenly outdent during a single post. I've taken the liberty of updating your above post.)

 HWV258.  22:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I, too, agree with excluding the links as they do not, in any way, help the reader. Cunard (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. In addition, it's like Sock Central around here.Tony (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt that anyone here is a sockpuppet. Spurious accusations from either side does not help the discussion. And since most users here are established editors, even a "meatpuppet" accusation would be faulty.

It would not be incorrect to note, however, that the editors on one side (such as Tony1, DaBomb87, OhConfucius, Cunard, and HWV258) often contribute to each other's discussion page (and indeed, there is clear evidence of "notes" left on each other's pages about this in the last two days) and share an area of interest (the Wikipedia de-linking project) while those on the other share a separate area of interest. Surely it's not coincidence.

In short, for better or worse, often a CABAL of fanatical editors tend to decide for the vast majority (who often have little/no interest in the subject). If we were to be purely objective here and only editors that found out about this edit discussion by chance only (rather than being notified by "allied colleagues") It is highly likely that not a single comment would have appeared here.Ryoung122 14:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And yet, that does not affect the appropriateness of the year link. I might add though, that I at least have rarely, if ever, corresponded with Cunard. If you want more objective editors to weigh in, feel free to ask for a 3rd opinion. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes—the old "I did the right thing because people didn't find out about it by chance" approach to editing on WP.

It is worth noting (again) that this issue was thoroughly debated by many more than a small "CABAL" of editors. The above argument is purely a mechanism to try and deflect the discussion away from the relevant point: that the community has reached consensus that years of birth and death should not be linked.

 HWV258.  22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

i was wrong, your not SOCK puppets, MEAT puppets is more likely. 65.0.20.40 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance of you helping with the issues being discussed? If not, run away and hide you horrid anonymous nobody.  HWV258.  01:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA 198.175.205.251 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. You're going to have to expect some reaction on a talk page if you (anonymously and cowardly) accuse people of being puppets. Especially since you have no evidence whatsoever.  HWV258.  19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

puppetry is not the issue here, its about how ridiculous you and others are being to make a big deal about a simple year link, if you dont wanna click on it then dont, its as simple as that. 198.175.205.251 (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To you it's as simple as that (that much is obvious to all now). To hundreds of other editors who have been involved in the date-linking debate over the previous years, there are many other issues. Perhaps if you do a bit of reading you'll also come to appreciate the other aspects of the debate? Good luck with that.  HWV258.  20:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the debate above and at the debate on linking years, and from what I can tell, the consensus reached on Option 1 of linking dates allows for a link made to this person's year of birth. And that is because in this case, the relevance of the year in question is underlined by the stated fact that this person is the last male alive born that year. To apply this logic to the example used in the debate on the year-link issue, the birth year of Phillip Johnson is neither relevant or germane to architecture and is mere trivia in terms of Johnson's accomplishments here. This is definitely not the case with Kimura - the year is relevant not only to the individual in question, who is largely noted for the year he was born, it is relevant to the general subject of gerontology as last-living is an aspect of the subject closely tracked as a last living link to the era in question. Which also addresses why an Asian man should be linked to a year with little or any note of Asian events - it is a link to the era, not to any particular events of that era, which makes the year-link relevant.

I demonstrated above that the information at the other end of the 1897 link is irrelevant to the information contained in the article on Mr Kimura. This is a point that most of the 208 editors who chose Option 1 in the RfC also realised. The information at 1897 is nothing but a collection of trivia as far as Mr Kimura is concerned. That really is the simple concept that drove the results of the RfC debate.

Actually, I think you are incorrect on these points, HVW. While the year article can definitely be improved to provide better context than a mere list of notable events, this is a separate issue. Even if the year page listed events of relevance linked to Mr Kimura, that's not the reason for linking to that year - it is because he is partly notable for being the last male cohort of the year itself. And that very point is explicitly made in the article here.

And, speaking personally, when I have read articles on a person being the last living link to, say, World War I, or to the American Civil War, it is both relevant and interesting to be able to click on that link to refresh my memory on what was notable about that event. The same logic applies to the last human link to a particular era. I have definitely looked at years noted that a person was the last living link to. It's interesting to note that Oscar Wilde was serving jail time after his famous trial as the current oldest person was born. That the first Olympic Games were about to be held. That Wilfrid Laurier became prime minister of Canada. Those are concrete links, a very human links, to something familiar and is my view entirely relevant to include to impart a sense of the span of time of an individual's life. So, the argument for Kimura could be made to other "last links" to particular years. Though I'd not go beyond last male/female cohort, for example, noting last American cohort and linking that person to a year. Canada Jack (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Canada Jack (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry—all a big stretch; and there are too many loopholes that will eventually dilute the clear community-based consensus on not linking dates of birth and death years. "...who is largely noted for the year he was born..."—of course not; he is noted for the age he achieved when he died. Anyhow if you really feel this strongly (and as this is not the place to debate it), why not pitch in at Wikipedia_talk:Linking#Request_for_Comment:_Year-linking_exceptions_for_persons_noted_as_.22links.22_to_the_past?  HWV258.  20:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the precise "consensus" you identify as being "clear," as this is one of the rare situations where the year of birth - and what was going on in the world that particular year - is of interest and germane to the article, in contrast to the samples mentioned (Phillip Johnson, architecture). And... I missed the stuff below... d'oh! So I will add my two cents soon on the appropriate page. Canada Jack (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We have very different definitions of "germane".  HWV258.  22:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed we do if you suggest that to link to the year in this sentence, "...the last known living man from the year 1897," is not "germane." This is one of the few cases where it is the year itself, rather than the events of the year, which is non-trivially associated with an individual. Canada Jack (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to move discussion

This debate should be taken to the policy page regarding linking to years and possible exceptions. I find many of the editing and comments to be quite disturbing because they misconstrue their position as the "only possible way." Consider:

1. For many years, date linking was in fact the consensus

2. Tony1 was actively involved in the efforts to overturn the then-consensus in favor of date linking

3. Many of the editors supporting his position in this case posted on his talk page in the last two days, suggesting possible CANVASSING.

4. Some of the editors (including Tony1, supposedly a person with a Ph.D. who knows better) edited my personal page in a disparaging way (even though personal pages do not fall under the "guidelines" of Wikipedia articles themselves)

5. Even if "consensus" was generally achieved through coup d'etat measures, that does not establish that no exceptions can be made

6. Therefore, the debate should be as to whether an exception to the general guideline (not policy)

7. Editors pushing the "overlink" POV continue to miscontrue what is a "guideline" as "policy" (which it is not)

8. Usually, when a new issue arises, it is best to maintain the status quo unless/until debate determines that a change to the status quo should be made. Those pushing the "overlink" POV have failed to recognize that, in fact, status quo arugments favor maintaining links in articles for "oldest persons."

9. Arguments you make fail to take into account the input of outside sources. For example, we see books like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Jeanne-Calment-Goghs-Extraordinary-Years/dp/0786217774

which not only make a big deal out of the year of birth (read the book if you don't believe me) but even the title has the word "years" in it, and the subtitle says "from van Gogh's time to ours." Does this not establish that there is a CONSENSUS notion in outside sources that Jeanne Calment is a symbol, a "LINK" from the 1870s to the 1990s? Or more specifically, from 1875 to 1997. Even the year 1997 is mentioned in the very short, 3-line edit summary. This suggests that for "oldest persons" links through time are of the utmost importance to the article. Is Jeanne Calment famous for cooking? For sports? For running a business? Or for her link from 1875 to 1997?Ryoung122 23:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To the point "this debate should be taken to the policy page regarding linking to years and possible exceptions"—I agree wholeheartedly. It is somewhat surprising therefore to see that the rest of the above points prolong the debate on this page! For that reason they are not worthy of a response here (which is not to say that I don't have a couple of thoughts on them).  HWV258.  23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Irrelevant; the consensus has changed, as has been said several times now.
2. OK, so what?
3. Nope, no canvassing; many editors have Tony's page watchlisted (230 as of this comment) so it would not be surprising if they saw the thread on his talk page and felt the urge to comment here.
4. Irrelevant, although I agree those actions were unnecessary.
5. A 500-person poll does not amount to a coup d'etat
6. Agree to the first statement, although the "only a guideline" phrase doesn't fly if there's no reason to ignore the guideline.
7. Evidence that said editors are misconstruing the consensus, please.
8. No such status quo; the consensus at WP and the Manual of Style changed months ago and there seems to be no widespread consensus for such an exception for oldest people articles
9. "Is Jeanne Calment famous for cooking? For sports? For running a business? Or for her link from 1875 to 1997?" None of the above. It's here longevity that makes her notable. The years are just details. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In summary though, I agree that we should go to the WT:LINKING page to discuss this. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

on january 21 another longevity record will be made

editors keep a watch on this artical's subject in 7 days this man becomes the 10th verified oldest man ever when he over takes the next man on the list which is Johnson parks an american man who lived to 113 years, 275 days. placing Jiroemon kimura in the top 10 of oldest men that ever lived. 69.208.10.149 (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

on march 21 another longevity record will be made

Jiroemon Kimura will over take the next man on the list of oldest men ever lived his name was Moses Hardy and lived to be 113 years 335 days. if this man can live this long he will become the 8th oldest man to ever live. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think no need to presage every little milestone. :) If milestone is significant, then it is guaranteed to be mentioned in article in right time. What is really necessary - new information about Jiroemon's life. Last facts still remains to be old, from 2009.109.205.248.237 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Up next for Kimura is Fred Hale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.193.30 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

good call on fred hale now all eyes are on him to see if he can live for 90 more days and surpase the next person on the list and go up one more the next person is Joan Riudavets from spain but the real challenge will be catching up to and reaching walter Breuning's record but he would have to live for more months then that.but if successful in longevity he will reach beard. but at the age of 115 in april 2012 he will get that.

besides thes arnt "little" mile stones each person he succeeds means something. each milestone adds up to one big milestone this extreme-aged elderly man is defeating the odds and showing us that he wont go quietly and he will not be forgoten by the global community. hes got a few more years to live and his death may become a nation day of re-membering in japan a sort of national health day. but that seems obsurd to think about but certainly he wont be forgoten. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of him

Now that he's the oldest man in the world, and the last man from the 1800s, I think it'd be nice to have a picture of him. --Farvin111 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No pic yet, what is this!? --Leoj83 (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Another image request! He's very likely to become the oldest man ever very soon. There should be a picture of him before that happens. Silenceisgod (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wife?

I know that Japan is a very private country, but is there any info on whether his wife is still alive or not and about what she did for a living? I think the odds of is wife being alive right now are very low unless she was a lot younger than Kimura. That said, it would be nice to have some more info on her. Futurist110 (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Oldest living person in Asia and oldest living man"

I'm not sure whether those titles are notable, what with him being the oldest person in general now. The oldest living person in Asia title seems moot now; that isn't too much of an issue.

"oldest living man" is a bit more controversial to me, since the oldest living person is usually NOT the oldest living man. Is it notable enough to keep, along with when he became it, or does the "oldest living person" part trump that? Silenceisgod (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer this title to be re-added. I agree `oldest person' is much more notable, but the dates at which both titles were gained are different. It's still interesting to see (in the box) when he became oldest living Asian.

Furthermore, it is inconsistent to leave the title `Oldest living man'. I don't see how since the oldest living person is usually NOT the oldest living man explains this. One could argue that the oldest living person is usually NOT the oldest living Asian/Japanese. Since 1955, the oldest person has been a man 5 times, and an Asian/Japanese person 7 times (see Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living person since 1955). That is not different enough to warrant different treatment here, in my opinion. Therefore I'm very much in favor of keeping all four titles; each is important in itself. Gap9551 (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Future potential event

We seem to have several editors who think we need to list the potential milestone of Mr. Kimura surpassing Christian Mortensen to become the oldest man ever. This event will be on 28 December, IF it occurs (Mr. Kimura could well die before then). Looking at page history, I got the impression that such events should not be listed until they take place, if they do. Is there any rule or consensus on this? Seanette (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "several editors". The text has been in the article for months and is simply informing the many readers of this article about a significant upcoming milestone. This is specifically supported by WP:CRYSTAL. I really can't understand what the problem is since the "if" in the sentence explicitly means that WP is not stating the event will occur. For Heaven's sake, the guy has lived for 42,242 days and we are talking about an event that will happen in 14 days. Please respect the evolved consensus. If it comes to it, I vote Keep. GFHandel ♬  21:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If there really is consensus, why have editors other than me removed it, citing the fact that it hasn't happened yet? Those removals are the only reason I'm questioning whether this belongs, and there's really no need for you to be so angry with me for questioning an item that gets removed pretty frequently. Seanette (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Emiliano Mercado del Toro had a similar wording prior to his death in January 2007. According to this revision as of 30th December 2006, it stated that "Aged 115 years, del Toro is the second oldest fully validated male ever, and if he lives until May 1 2007, he will surpass Christian Mortensen, the current title-holder, and take the world record." So Jiroemon's should remain. In case there is a debate on whether or not it should remain, feel free to use del Toro's revision history to support a keep. 101.162.133.174 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that citing a revision from 2006 is adequate justification. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 17:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if Emiliano had it after his 115th birthday then Jiroemon's should remain too. And it only has to remain on the page for at most another week. Either Jiroemon passes away before that or he reaches the date. Either way it will be removed at some point in a week. 124.187.69.8 (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoooo! *throws confetti* Silenceisgod (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Place of Birth

While Kimura's place of birth is listed as Kyōtango, this article says, "Kimura [...] was born as Kinjiro Miyake in Kamiukawa, a fishing and farming village sandwiched between the mountains and the Sea of Japan." I can't figure out where Kamiukawa is located, and Google turns up only a few hits each for Kamiukawa and Kami-Ukawa. I wonder if there's a more common spelling/romanization that I'm not aware of. For now I just left the birthplace as Kyōtango, but I hope someone else can figure it out. Miskatonik (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend changing it. I gave you three cities named Kamiukawa in Japan, but since we don't know which one is correct yet let's just put Kamiukawa without putting the province/prefecture name in the article. Futurist110 (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Photo?

Is there any available? It would not be bad as now he is the world's longest-lived verified man in history, and in the past there were many age cheaters in Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.43.203 (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"Stay in native person"

I think what user:74.102.179.50 meant by "stay in native" is a non-immigrant Supercentenarian. The user is trying to include that when Besse Cooper died, Jiroemon became the oldest living non-immigrant SC. I agree with the removal. It's not a milestone and hasn't been included on ANY other SC page. I'd like to see 74.102.179.50 explain why this "milestone" should be included. 123.211.110.15 (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Age discrepancy

Does anyone agree that his verified age (even when being potentially erroneous) should be the age used? It doesn't look very professional in the article to have so many eithers and ors! MattSucci (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 01:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree . I suggest we use only the officially verified date/age throughout the article, and just leave the comment in the "Early life, marriage and career" section that his nephew reckons the date was a misprint. --DAJF (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree . I agree the verified date is best to use. Rpvt (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree . No official document gives the March date, so to quote that date is just to repeat his nephew's hearsay. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree . Besides, the only source for the March birthdate is that Bloomberg news article, which is based on some reporter's not-necessarily-infallible report, which in turn is based on the word of Kimura's "nephew", who is most probably a rather elderly man himself, whose memory may therefore not be as clear as it used to be. I don't mean that Kimura's "nephew" is wrong; he could well be right; but unfortunately, even if he is really right and his word is really the truth, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be based on that. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Erm, was it a good idea to completely remove the mention of Kimura's nephew and his claim about the possible date error? The guy may well be mistaken, but it was nevertheless reported in a reliable source, so I think it should at least be mentioned in this article. --DAJF (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake; it was an accident, since that sentence came after Rpvt's revision. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for re-adding it. --DAJF (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Empire of Japan?

I see that Empire of Japan has been re-added as the name of the country in which Kimura was born, but the country in which he was born was still called Japan even in the days when it had an empire. As Kimura was born in Kyoto, and not some far-flung colony of the former Japanese empire, the country name should read Japan. For reference, the infoboxes in the Hirohito (born 1901) and Emperor Taishō (born 1879) articles are good examples of how it should be rendered. And for anyone else interested, I raised the matter on the WikiProject Japan talk page a while back to get comments by more knowledgeable editors. --DAJF (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This is another issue I'm indifferent towards (which means I won't mind someone else reverting it to "Japan", let alone bothering to unrevert it to "Empire of Japan"), but to be fair and according to historical facts, the official political name of Japan at that time (and even before it included parts of China and Korea, etc.) was really "Empire of Japan": Meiji Constitution (which was the informal name of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan); not to mention the obvious common-sensical fact that the head of Japan was an "Emperor", and not a "President" or "Prime Minister" or even "King", and a person can only be called an "Emperor" if he rules over an "Empire" (and not just an area of land called by some other name, e.g. "Kingdom" or "Republic"), right? And just to illustrate further the political emphasis of Japan being called "Empire of Japan" at that time, the political entity of Japan before 1868 was not even called "Japan" by the Japanese people themselves; it was called the Tokugawa bakufu (徳川幕府). - Ujongbakuto (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Change it again and you will be blocked, Ujongbakuto. As already pointed out to you, it is common practice to use simply "Japan" for the country, even for those born when it was known under a slightly different name. Even those born prior to the Meiji Restoration are listed as being born in Japan. Please stop your pointless edit warring. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any position on the basic question, I'm just wondering where you get the authority to unilaterally ban someone. Seanette (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about banning anyone. Blocking is not banning, so please use the right words. Where I get the authority is because Ujongbakuto keeps changing it back despite being told not to do so. He needs to instead discuss it here (and most likely over at WP:MOS-JA, since his preference would have much wider impact than just this article). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nihonjoe, with all due respect to your authority as an admin, may I ask you to be fair with me by getting your facts right and not wrongfully accuse me of "pointless edit warring"? Firstly, I was already aware that you pointed out to me here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jiroemon_Kimura&diff=541009761&oldid=540988216) that "Sorry, but "Japan" is the name of the country which was in the "Empire of Japan", we list the common name of the country as part of the birthplace", which is why I have never changed that edit of yours since over a week ago. It was Illegitimate Barrister who kept "changing it back despite being told not to do so", even though, to be fair, it was not he who was actually told such a thing and even though he only changed it twice; and if you actually meant him instead of me, may I point out to you, just in case you are not aware, that he seems to have received quite a number of editing barnstars on his user page? Once again, with all due respect to your authority as an admin - Ujongbakuto (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

How about we leave the birthplace as simply "Japan", but leave it unlinked. That way, both sides are content. I've seen plenty birthplaces in infoboxes with the country delinked. As for "Empire of Japan", I changed his birthplace to that, as that is the state that governed Japan at the time of the man's birth. When I changed the birthplace to "Empire of Japan", I was doing it for historical accuracy's sake, and as such, I didn't foresee that it was going to get this heated, but that is the nature of Wikipedia. Anyway, most Wikipedia articles of people list their birthplaces as the country that existed at the time, rather than the modern-day equivalent; didn't the Empire of Japan include Japan at the time? As for banning, I believe the user is an admin, so he pretty much has that authority. Such is life. Anwyay, see you guys later. Cheers, best regards. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

So an admin can use a banhammer to enforce his own POV in a dispute or indulge a personal grudge without the user he's decided he doesn't like having any recourse? Nice. Seanette (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "banhammer" here on Wikipedia, so please can the internet forum jargon. I don't have a personal grudge and I'm not enforcing my own POV (except where it happens to conicide with established practice, as I already indicated). You're injecting unnecessary drama into something which really has none. Please calm down and stop inflaming the issue. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the way it is. Anyway, as for birthplaces, what is Wikipedia's official policy for biographical articles regarding that matter? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, according to WP:OVERLINK, it is generally not considered necessary to link to country names anyway. --DAJF (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I have delinked the countries in the infobox in any case. Cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Date format

With this edit, user Oda Mari restored a date format of MDY (after my revert of his first edit). The explanation he gave on my talk page is that "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor". I wasn't aware that discussion had taken place (and still can't locate it), so here goes...
The edit that altered the date format to DMY happened on 4 October 2009 – which is about three and a half years ago. The community has lived quite happily with that decision in all those years, so I see no reason to change now. In terms of "first major contributor", that also is a flimsy rationale in this case because the only person to use MDY (the article's creator) got blocked about the time that it was changed to DMY. So who is the major contributor who has insisted on MDY (after 4 October 2009)?
As per the policy quoted (about "If discussion cannot ..."), I have reverted the article (to what has served the community well) until this discussion has concluded. If it comes to a !vote, I choose DMY, but will of course abide by the consensus decision.
GFHandel ♬  06:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My own personal inclination would be for an article about a person, use the format used in that person's country of residence, but really, as long as the article is consistent with itself, I'm content. Seanette (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be YMD in Japan, which I don't think is an acceptable option in English Wikipedia articles. I thought WP:DATERET was pretty clear in that we normally stick with the format first used in an article, which in this case is MDY, as per Oda Mari, even if no one noticed or objected to the date format being quietly switched a couple of years back. --DAJF (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a few quick observations, and then I'll leave this alone:

It's not "a couple of years", it's almost three and a half years; and perhaps every editor since then has noticed the DMY format and is comfortable with it?

From DATERET, the first point reads: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it". I would say that 3.5 years without change of the DMY format is pretty strong evolution.

On my talk page, Oda Mari stated "Most of the Japan-related articles use MDY format". I really don't have any figures to hand to verify that, but if that's the case then I can see that being an argument for switching to MDY after all this time. I'll leave it to others to debate that topic (but gee it would be unusual for that not to have been noticed in 3.5 years based on the number of Japanese-based editors who must have wandered past).

GFHandel ♬  08:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

These articles are the first 11 links found on the current Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Tori no Uta (mdy), Hino Tomiko (mdy), Hōjō Masako (mdy), Empire of Japan (currently dmy, but the original was mdy), Japan (currently dmy, but the original was mdy), Yui (singer) (mdy), AKB48 (mdy), Virginity (song) (mdy), Onyanko Club (mdy), Manatsu no Sounds Good! (mdy), and Mitsubishi A6M Zero (dmy). I was told "Stick with the original" years ago when I thoughtlessly changed the format dmy to mdy and I've been careful and never changed the format since. I only restore the format and I cannot stand editors who ignore the original date format and change it. As for this article, I just knew it recently on the WikiProject Japan talk page. March 14 is 3月14日/third month 14 day in Japan. So the md order is comfortable and English taught in Japan is American en. En newspapers in Japan use mdy. [1], [2] and [3]. Oda Mari (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think those in charge of the English Wikipedia should simply impose an arbitrary rule for the date format in order to solve/prevent all these petty disputes. I'm indifferent to either DMY or MDY, but I think one of them should be the only format allowed by the English Wikipedia authorities for English Wikipedia articles. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Longevity milestones!

I am of the opinion that the milestone section has become quite cluttered and almost unreadable! Many are, in my opinion, poorly written and contain too much unnecessary information! If the consensus agrees with WP:TRIVIA, myself or someone else could then perform a "tidy up"! MattSucci (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the milestone section is a good way to keep track of, and review, Kimura's ascension up the various "ladders". So, as long as every milestone in every year is correct, I think it should be okay to leave the section as it is now. But of course, I don't mean improvement is not possible; I'd like to see improvement, but as of now, I can't think of a way for me to improve it. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• In response to this ongoing discussion, I experimented with a different approach and threw together a basic timeline for select milestones which I'll include below for feedback. This kind of thing could either be added in addition to the milestones for visual help, or replace it, or not be used at all if it's no good. Feel free to adjust to your liking.

RoadView (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I like the timeline. It's easy to read and reduces clutter. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 00:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I like it too, but I think the exact date for each milestone should also be stated clearly beside each milestone. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree I agree with the timeline idea, at least it is simpler. As for adding the precise dates, well, I'm not too bothered either way. As for the most important milestones, well, they're already in his biography! The timeline could cover the less important milestones so as to keep the article less cluttered and more enjoyable for the layman to read! MattSucci (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Realistically, I don't think readers care about the exact date. It's just too much information and can become confusing. With the timeline, they can see approximately when the milestone was reached, and in the order that they occurred. Also, most of these milestones lack a reference to support them anyway, so the exact date may not be accurate (or necessary).
— JJJ ^{(say hello)} 14:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that you mention supporting references, I realize that this timeline is within an image, so how are references to be added into it, or are they not necessary? - Ujongbakuto (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to add references to the timeline. They are supposed to be present for verifiability, yet most of these milestones are unreferenced anyway, so the generality of the timeline could help persuade editors to leave the milestones even if they are unreferenced. Another idea is to leave the milestone section as it is, with only the significant milestones, and cite the sources there. Then the timeline could be placed below the section, perhaps as a collapsible box? — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 15:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the latter idea. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the exact dates of the individual milestones ought to be included, and so do references. If the milestones are not actually sourced in the timeline graphic, they will need to be sourced somewhere in the article, or that raises WP:BLP problems. More seriously, though, doesn't the graphic cause serious accessibility problems, especially for readers using screen readers? The manual of style recommends including text equivalents of charts of figures, so in that case, I have to wonder whether we really need this graphic version at all. --DAJF (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Who will take the responsibility to change the milestones to the timeline?

If that is the consensus! I am certainly not capable enough! MattSucci (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I could change it, it would pretty much be as simple as copying what's here and replacing the milestones section. But, based on the few people that have commented so far, it seems like there is somewhat of a positive reaction to the timeline, yet there also appears to be some second guessing its benefits as wells as sourcing concerns. Personally I don't feel comfortable outright replacing it yet based on the discussion here. I would also like there to be a consensus on exactly which milestones to include and exclude on the timeline, and if other settings should be tweaked, such as color, font size, spacing, etc. Hopefully others will give their input. RoadView (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Personaly I would say only the following major milestones should be kept in the "Major Milestone" section;

(Taken from the milestones section in the article!)

2011, April 14, 2011, Walter Breuning died. Jiroemon Kimura, aged 113 years, 360 days, became the oldest living verified man in the world.

October 26, 2011, Jiroemon Kimura, aged 114 years, 190 days, surpassed Yukichi Chuganji to become the oldest Japanese man ever.

2012, April 19, 2012, Jiroemon Kimura became the 3rd verified man in history to reach age 115.

December 17, 2012, Dina Manfredini died. Jiroemon Kimura, aged 115 years 242 days, became the oldest living person.

December 28, 2012, Jiroemon Kimura, aged 115 years, 253 days, surpassed Christian Mortensen to become the oldest verified man ever.

2013, January 2, 2013, Jiroemon Kimura, aged 115 years, 258 days, surpassed Dina Manfredini to become one of the ten oldest verified people ever.

As for the less important milestones/trivia, they could be on the timeline as it would not require so much space! Either way, keeping the milestone section as it is currently, appears to be against consensus! MattSucci (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have strong feelings on this myself, but there are a few difficulties with the timeline graphic, so far as I can tell - if it replaces the text version, we do run into accessibility issues for those using screen readers (as mentioned above), and that graphic will be very hard to read for people using small screens, such as on mobile devices, as well as taking a fair amount of vertical space where we could fit in more information by using text. I'm not opposed to adding it, but would think removing the corresponding text would not be the best move.Seanette (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the list of milestones presented by MattSucci should be the milestones that are kept. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 17:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, only those listed above by MattSucci should be included. There is also no need for the graphic given above by RoadView. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a list of agrees/disagrees to see what the true consensus is regarding the overhaul of the milestone section, and to what should or should not be included? MattSucci (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest the following:

• Becoming the oldest living person/man/woman in their country.
• Becoming one of the 100 oldest ever (person/man/woman).
• Becoming the oldest ever person/man/woman in their country.
• Becoming the oldest ever person/man/woman in the world.
• Becoming the nth person to reach 116 (person/woman) or 113, maybe 112 (man). Lower ages are too close to the top 100 to be sufficiently distinct for notability.

Note that unless there are a number (say >3) of "milestones" there is no need for a Milestones section, the information should be included in the opening paragraph and does not need to be repeated. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

9th oldest

Who agrees that the "9th oldest" does not belong in the milestones section? I'm hesitant to delete it as any step up the top 10 ladder is certainly an amazing, if somewhat involuntary achievement, but if allowed the article would be soon filled up with perhaps too many others (8th, 7th and so on). What is the consensus on major longevity milestone? Are only multiples of 10 allowed? MattSucci (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'm indifferent towards including/excluding it; but I can understand why it's an interesting milestone because he's the only man in the top 10, so it might be fun to keep track of his ascension up the "ladder". - Ujongbakuto (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep it, and if and when he reaches any future milestone the previous milestone could be replaced. MattSucci (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not. This is pure trivia. Being the 9th oldest is significant enough to be mentioned in the lede (much more so than most of the other fluff which is there) the date on which he became the 9th oldest, and who he surpassed, is not. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Longevity milestone consensus

Below is a list of all of the milestones currently listed on the page. To place your vote for each milestone, simply use {{y}} if you want to keep the milestone, or {{n}} if you want the milestone to be removed. Place your vote next to the existing votes in the appropriate list in the table. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 18:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Some of these I would like to see only listed combined, such as "28th verified person in history to reach age 115" and "3rd verified man in history to reach age 115". Also, with others the exact wording swayed my opinion as with "oldest living person in Asia", I would rather have the milestone be for a country not a continent. I also think along with this we should come up with a general guide or rules to use for all supercentenarian milestones to establish consistency. - RoadView (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with RoadView. It couldn't be that hard to have some sort of general consensus of what belongs in these supercentenarian articles, consistency through the articles would look so much more professional. MattSucci (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As I noted above not all of these need to be mentioned both in the lead and in a separate milestones section, Jiroemen Kimura is one of very few supercentenarians where this would be justified. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted a few milestones from the article! I kept or deleted only those that had a majority for or against! Those that had no majority may or may not be kept/deleted depending on future consensus! MattSucci (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

I think old threads on this talk page should be archived, perhaps automatically by MiszaBot I as is done at Talk:List of living supercentenarians. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 15:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. The bot should start archiving in 24 hours. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Romanization of name

Kimura's given name is written in five kanji, but the romanization shows only four. I carefully checked the readings of all five and so we have: 次=ji, 郎=rō, 右=u, 衛=e, 門=mon. As far as I know, in Japanese there is no such thing as 'mute kanji' as there are mute letters in English and French. So 'Jirōumen' then would be more correct. However, I am not an expert in the field and since the Japanese article gives the name in Hiragana as じろうえもん, i.e. 右 seems to be missing again, I refrained from making a correction. Or may be 郎 is shortened to ro in which case 'Jirouemon' would be correct while remaining consistent with the Hiragana spelling? Any comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazibara (talk • contribs) 07:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are probably right that "郎右" = "rou"; but actually, "ou" = "ō" (with that short horizontal line above the "o"); so I hope that solves your problem. Ujongbakuto (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I agree, that in most cases "ou" = "ō", but that happens only when this "ou" belongs to the same morpheme, written with a single kanji and is in fact a single long vowel. In case "ou" are two vowels belonging to two different morphemes, they cannot be contracted to a long "ō"; in fact, there would be a syllable break in addition to the morpheme break and two kanji may be used to represent the two morphemes. See, for example, 井野上, Hiragana いのうえ, romanized as Inoue and never *Inōe.

In Japanese the vowel romanized as "u" is pronounced unrounded, quite differently from English "u" in put, so there is a considerable and easily perceived difference in pronunciation between "ou" being a single long vowel and "ou" being two vowels in hiatus.

Gazibara (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, firstly, both "Jiroemon" or "Jirōemon" are just approximate and simplified/simple (obviously to minimize complications for native English speakers) English transliterations of "次郎右衛門" or "じろうえもん".

Secondly, the kanji for "Inoue" is "井上", not "井野上".

Thirdly, the hiragana, "いのうえ", for "井上", is "い"(i) for "井" and "のうえ" (noue) for "上", so that's at least 2 (or even 3?) syllables for just one kanji.

So my point is that in any language, including English, there are always exceptions to the many grammatical/spelling rules, and there's no need to be too pedantic sometimes.Ujongbakuto (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that Ujongbakuto has reverted the romanized form of the subject's name from "Jirouemon" to "Jirōemon" in this edit, but I'm afraid this is an incorrect romanization. This person's name is "次郎右衛門" (Ji+Ro+U+E+Mon) (note that "郎" is "Ro" here, and not "Rō"). Details of how "o + u" are treated in the standard Hepburn romanization system are explained at Hepburn romanization#O + U, which shows how we use "kouma" for "仔馬", and not "kōma". Is there any special reason for going against the widely used form here? --DAJF (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's now "ou". I'm actually flexible for this particular issue; I just didn't think it was necessary to be too pedantic about it. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, that looks better now. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

右衛門 reads "uemon" when used with 右衛門XX, but "u/う" is dropped and it reads as "emon" when used XX右衛門 in personal names like Ishikawa Goemon and Nakamura Kichiemon II. Kimura's first name is a combination of Jirō and emon, and it should be Romanized as "Jirōemon". See [4], [5], and [6]. I use ATOK for IME, but it won't convert 右衛門 when I type "uemon/うえもん", but "emon/えもん". Any objection? Oda Mari (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before above, "I'm actually flexible for this particular issue", so I don't mind having it as "Jirōemon"; but even the hiragana (じろうえもん) in the Japanese Wikipedia article for 木村次郎右衛門 supports the romaji spelling as "ji"+"ro"+"u"+"e"+"mo"+"n" = "jirouemon", so that should be at least one good reason for sticking with "jirouemon", in my opinion. There's also the issue of "Kinjiro" (which is the Bloomberg spelling) versus "Kinjirō" (which was the spelling used by some editor whose username I can't remember). As for ATOK, is it perfect? In any case, which is the source that uses "Jirōemon" as the correct romaji spelling of the hiragana (じろうえもん) for 次郎右衛門? Even the Gerontology Research Group doesn't spell it with the "ō"; "Jiroemon" is just an approximate and convenient English spelling to use as Kimura's official English first name. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

じろう is Jirō in modified Hepburn romanization as 郎/ro and u is one character and a word-border does not exist. It's different from words with a word-border like 子馬 子/ko + 馬/uma. See Jiro (given name). Just Jiro would be じろ. I have no idea what romanization Bloomberg uses. But en:WP use Hepburn and I just follow it. Oda Mari (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. But "ō" can also be "o+o", so some people might not know whether "ō" is "o+u" or "o+o". In any case, you seem to be the only one in favour of "ō" so far, and there are at least 2 users above (excluding myself, because I'm actually quite flexible) who favour "ou", so I'm not sure how "consensus" can be reached for this issue. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Oda Mari for supplying a reliable source (http://www.nhk.or.jp/kininaru-blog/90409.html) that explains how the "右" in the name "右衛門" goes unpronounced. This clarifies that the name Jiroemon here consists of "次 (Ji) + 郎 (Rō) + 右 (unpronounced) 衛 (E) + 門 (Mon)", so I see now that my earlier understanding is wrong and the name should be written as "Jirōemon". --DAJF (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Age needs to be updated.

As of April 16, 2013, he is 115 years, 362 days not 115 years, 359 days. This needs to be updated and updated everyday constantly until he dies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiara610 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Where are you seeing an incorrect age? Did someone break the automatic update markup again? Seanette (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see any "359"; I see "362" days. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Of Milestone Section!

I have deleted any milestone of which the information was already contained in the article. Could someone please back me up and maybe delete the entire section and incorporate if necessary any of the information from the remaining "milestones". MattSucci (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, done! :-) Those entering-the-"top 10" (or even "top 100") milestones now no longer seem important at all. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the remaining inappropriate entries except for those that remain have been cited and/or listed in the infobox at the foot of the page which I think are the ones that comply with WP:V and WP:OR. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out, loud, the milestone section is 100% IMPORTANT! I give the milestone removal idea a -1000000 out of 10.--96.242.248.121 (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Only 2 out of the 12 listed milestones had a direct citation supporting them. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 01:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

He's actually 116 years old now

That's because it's already 19 April in Japan as I type this in Upstate New York. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

See DailyKos story. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the source; I've included it in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jiroemon_Kimura&diff=next&oldid=551012450). - Ujongbakuto (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

So he's the first man to reach 116 years of age, but he's 115 years, 364 days old (as of this writing?) That's very weird. Shouldn't the day update according to Japan time? Silenceisgod (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Dates are based on Greenwich mean time. That is when the automatic update rolls over. As I write this that time is 22:12 on 18 April, so in just under 2 hours it will roll over and show 116. Wiki cannot reflect the different times around the world at the same time and iss supposed to be only as up-t-date as reasonably practical. It's no biggie! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it true

I am just curious,I hope this guy is really this old, but are you sure he doesn't belong to a Japanese family who is trying to make a few bucks by claiming a supercenterarian in the family? Is he really Alive? If so was he really born in the 20th century? I hope he is this old but I just learned about the Japanese Centenarian fraud scheme today [7] Nottruelosa (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen him personally, but all the evidence points to him still being alive. MattSucci (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

haha, this reminds me of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth:

"... material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source." - Ujongbakuto (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

He has been verified by the Gerontology Research Group. If it was just a fraud or scam, I think the GRG would know and wouldn't have verified him. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's very, very difficult to rewrite koseki. Oda Mari (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You say that, but for many years it was assumed that Shigechiyo Izumi was the oldest man ever at 120 until it turned out that mistakes had been made and his claim was unreliable. I also find it worrying that the article contains the sentence "According to Kimura's nephew, Kimura's birthday was recorded as April 19, 1897 instead of March 19, 1897". So if they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong? But anyway, as you say it's down to verifiability not truth so not much we can do here except to report it as given in reliable sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of the word "verified"

Relatively minor, but where is the use of "verified oldest" appropriate, and where is it not? It's inconsistent in the article; "oldest verified man ever" is used but also "oldest japanese man ever". Silenceisgod (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If the subject has been verified by GRG, then they are verified. I think that the word verified is used to clarify certain longevity milestones if other 'unverified' claims of other people exist. In Kimura's case, he is the oldest verified man ever and the oldest verified Japanese man ever. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 02:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo

Can someone please add a photo? There are many of him. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would love for a photo of him to be added to this article, but are there any photos which are legal to put in this article? Futurist110 (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A new video of him

[8] It's from his 116th birthday. It's clearly seen that his health has weakened. Also he recieved the congratulations from the Japanese prime minister. 77.127.4.186 (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 Great! — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 15:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This info (heath and Shinzō Abe's congrats) should be added to the article. --77.126.40.154 (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I didn't add anything about his health, as the video doesn't say anything about it. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 15:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If he dies, and Misao Okawa survives, well, Misao Okawa becomes the world's oldest person. But I can tell Jeralean Talley will be the first person born in 1899 to reach 114. Then Susanna Mushatt Jones, and then Bernice Madigan. James Sisnett will become the world's oldest living man. He may be the first black man to reach age 114.96.242.254.99 (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a talk page not a messageboard. Idle speculation has no place here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if you want to speculate, join the 110 Club forum. Futurist110 (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Milestones removed?

Why have you removed the milestones from the page? I didn't saw any reasons for that anywhere,if there is can you tell me?Ardad (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Milestone sections violate many Wikipedia codes, therefore they have been removed from all supercentenarian pages!188.23.89.37 (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion at Talk:Misao Okawa. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Need confirmation that Kimura has died

This link states that he has died but needs a subscription to access. A cite from a free-access page is preferable before changing this article. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This states that he died at 2:08am on 12 June (Japan time). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It should say that he died on June 12 at 116 years, 54 days, rather than June 11 at 116 years, 53 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.130.28 (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I have fixed the dates. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's one from Bloomberg: 1. Beerest355 Talk 23:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If James Sisnett has now died

Then is Jiroemon Kimura now the last verified living man born in the 19th century (as opposed to before 1900 which it was before Sisnett died - 1st January 1901 was the beginning of the 20th century)?

What about Jozef Kowalski though?

--A I O 9 3 2 (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Kowalski verified by GRG? — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 01:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Kowalski (from Poland) has not been verified by GRG. It seems that if you look at the list of the verified oldest people, there are literally no verified individuals listed there from countries in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Africa or Asia (excluding Japan). Is this because reliable records do not exist from these territories?--A I O 9 3 2 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

But to get back to what I was saying, if James McCoubrey who was born in 1901 is the second-oldest verified living man, then logically, Jiroemon Kimura is now officially the last verified living man who was born in the 19th century.

Even if this isn't added to the article, at least I can say that I was the first person to point out on the talk page of the relevant Wikipedia article that the last verified living man who was born in the 19th century is, in fact, the last verified living man who was born in the 19th century.--A I O 9 3 2 (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we need to mention that Kimura is both the last verified male born in the 1800s and the 19th century? The 19th century goes from 1801 to 1900 so we should just state one or the other. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No. And without an appropriate source stating either fact explicitly, neither should be there. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the entry for the 1800s as it is obviously redundant when put together with the 19th century!MattSucci (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Now in the main article it is mentioned that Jiroemon Kimura is the last man alive in the 19th century, and this article is used as a source:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/outnumbered-by-the-girls-hes-the-last-man-standing-20130524-2k6ry.html

However, Jozef Kowalski, if his birthdate is correct, would make this claim untrue. Is it just a case of you forgot Poland?--A I O 9 3 2 (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

While I do believe that Kimura was the last man from the 1800s and the oldest verified man ever I can't help but think there has to be some man somewhere still living who could have born in 1900. That's still very plausible. James MacCoubrey, born in September 1901, is now the oldest verified man in the world but I find it unlikely there would be a gap of almost 4 and a half years between Kimura and the next oldest man. Kowalski or someone else could very well be that person. Zz pot (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

problem with dates?

This does not make sense: "He finished school second in his class at age 14 and commenced working from local post offices around the age of 17. He retired in 1962 at the age of 65, having worked in post offices for 45 years" The source doesn't say anything about starting at the age of 17 and surely it would have to be around age 20? Or did he have a 3 year career break (and if so, where is the source for that?) --81.23.54.142 (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost every Japanese male had a " career break" from 1942-1945 when WW2 was going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.155.86 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)