This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Has anybody an idea?
Tanekichi Oonishi-15 February 1900 65.0.27.76 ( talk) 13:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
i was wrong, your not SOCK puppets, MEAT puppets is more likely. 65.0.20.40 ( talk) 00:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA 198.175.205.251 ( talk) 15:21, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Whoooo! *throws confetti* Silenceisgod ( talk) 01:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
RoadView ( talk) 19:17, 25 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Gazibara ( talk) 11:36, 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can someone please add a photo? There are many of him. -- Old Time Music Fan ( talk) 22:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here's one from Bloomberg: 1. Beerest355 Talk 23:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Has anybody an idea?
Tanekichi Oonishi-15 February 1900 65.0.27.76 ( talk) 13:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
i was wrong, your not SOCK puppets, MEAT puppets is more likely. 65.0.20.40 ( talk) 00:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA 198.175.205.251 ( talk) 15:21, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Whoooo! *throws confetti* Silenceisgod ( talk) 01:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
RoadView ( talk) 19:17, 25 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Gazibara ( talk) 11:36, 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can someone please add a photo? There are many of him. -- Old Time Music Fan ( talk) 22:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here's one from Bloomberg: 1. Beerest355 Talk 23:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)