Talk:List of Japanese supercentenarians

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)