Talk:Shigechiyo Izumi

Refer to Izumi as a Centenarian, and not a Supercentenarian

Since most things points to that Izumi was 105 and not 120 when he died, I think we should avoid calling him a supercentenarian (person over 110 years of age) in the article. And the term centenarian actually includes supercentenarians (all people over 100). A person should only be distinguished as a supercentenarian if the claim is proven beyond reasonable doubts. Not a disputed case like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoj83 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The presently "accepted" age is 120, with the option of 105 being second. The use of the word "supercentenarian" should stick unless there is further consensus that it indeed should be altered to "centenarian". Brendan (talk, contribs) 09:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

105 vs 120 Controversey

Is there a reason no mention of this now appears in the article? I thought it was interesting, even 10 years ago. Is this not meant to be an encyclopedia? brain (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean if something doesn't scan, VeryVerily? There may have been someone else we don't know about that passed age 120. --65.73.0.137

I mean the use of proven as you had it is not grammatical. Note the text said, the second-longest documented lifespan in the world, less only than that of Calment, meaning it's the only documented lifespan less than that of Calment. The qualifier about documented/proven does not need to be stated twice. -- VV 21:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

1. User 65 is going around, editing everything as if Guinness were "GOD" and no one else can say anything apart from them. First of all, User 65, who never contributed to this discourse before Oct 17 or answered on the discussion board, seems to have a delusional "God complex" that because he says something, it's right.

Well guess what, did it ever occur to you to consider BOTH SIDES of an issue BEFORE making a decision? If not, then you have a problem.

The FACTS of the matter are that the Shigechiyo Izumi case was disputed, even by the man who originally put it forward. The only reason that it hasn't been pulled is that in Japan, it is more important to "save face" than to fix the problem. The news article from 1986 shows as much:

Copyright 1986 Kyodo News Service Japan Economic Newswire

February 22, 1986, Saturday

LENGTH: 178 words

HEADLINE: MINISTER EXPRESSES CONDOLENCES OVER DEATH OF OLDEST MAN

DATELINE: TOKYO, FEB. 22

BODY: ISAMU IMAI, MINISTER OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, EXPRESSED CONDOLENCES SATURDAY OVER THE DEATH OF SHIGECHIYO IZUMI, LISTED AS THE WORLD'S OLDEST MAN IN THE GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS. IZUMI DIED OF PNEUMONIA FRIDAY AT THE AGE OF 120 AT HIS HOME ON SOUTHERN JAPANESE ISLAND OF TOKUNOSHIMA, KAGOSHIMA PREFECTURE. IMAI SENT A CABLE TO IZUMI'S FAMILY EXPRESSING DEEP CONDOLENCES. HIS ACTION WAS CONSIDERED TO MEAN THAT THE HEALTH AND WELFARE MINISTRY RECOGNIZED IZUMI AS THE OLDEST MAN IN THE WORLD. SOME QUARTERS IN JAPAN LAST YEAR EXPRESSED DOUBTS AS TO WHETHER IZUMI WAS REALLY 120 YEARS OLD.THE HEALTH AND WELFARE MINISTRY AT THE TIME REFUSED TO MAKE ANY OFFICIAL COMMENT. IZUMI'S DEATH LEFT INE TSUGAWA, 110, AS THE OLDEST LIVING PERSON IN JAPAN. SHE LIVES IN TOKUSHIMA, SHIKOKU ISLAND. HER OLDEST SON SHOICHI, 67, TOLD HER SATURDAY MORNING THAT SHE IS THE OLDEST PERSON IN JAPAN BECAUSE OF IZUMI'S DEATH. SHE WAS QUOTED AS SAYING THAT, "I SEE AND THANK YOU." HER FAMILY MEMBERS SAID SHE HAD RICE GRUEL AND SWEET POTATOES FOR BREAKFAST SATURDAY MORNING.

LOAD-DATE: Load-Date=February 22, 1986

So, User 65, did you do your homework? Do you understand Japanese culture? Do you understand that we haven't dropped the case ONLY because Guinness hasn't pulled it, and Guinness said they would drop it if the Ministry of Health and Welfare did. But they haven't done so, because it would have reflected badly on Japan and the family. Instead, they undertook to clean up the database to avoid the problem in the future. Thus, Shigechiyo Izumi is historically important as a transitional figure between longevity myth and proven age. It's like baseball and the batting title: research shows that in 1910, Nap Lajoie batted .383 and Ty Cobb, .382, but baseball hasn't changed the record. The Cooperstown story is now admitted to by a myth, but they haven't changed the location. What they did do, however, is allow a discussion that the "facts" are only presented as "historic representations of what was then thought," but wouldn't be accepted if presented today as new information. Hence, it is important to asterisk or footnote these mistakes.

In the Izumi case, he was probably 105. In any case, the case is disputed. Claiming that the case is not disputed by reputable sources is unscholarly, and obsessively delusional on "authority."

In a final point, User 65 has plagiarized the work of others on Wikipedia, including copying verbatim Guinness quotes (some of which are now irrelevant). I myself have been plagiarized (the list of people who almost made it to 110 comes from my lists posted as www.grg.org). If this failure to consider the viewpoints of others continues, I move that this user be barred from future editing rights.

131.96.2.208 16:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Problem with this sentence: Some Japanese experts, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that he was actually born in 1880 (see talk page for citation).

As suggested, the citation isn't in the discussion page. No where in the pasted article above mentions specific birth of 1880, just that it is disputed. User:NealIRC 14 August 2006 17:11 UTC.

Alright, someone fixed it. -NealIRC

Puzzling inconsistency

If Izumi was born in 1880, how could he have been recorded as being 6 years old in the census of 1871? Is the idea that it was actually his brother who was recorded by the census? The article mentions the possible reuse of his brother's birth certificate, but to be clear it should say that the experts believe that it was his brother who was counted in the 1871 census, if that is indeed the case. -- Dominus 02:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point: right. Extremely sexy 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, we don't know the age at which the other Shigechiyo Izumi died. Matter of fact, I don't think we even know that he does have a brother named Shigechiyo Izumi. So they found another person with the same first and last name born 15 years later. Just because someone has the same last name doesn't mean they're brothers. Could the same mother have given birth to him 15 years later? I'd like the Japan government to do a family lineage on Shigechiyo Izumi. This situation could almost be entirely resolved if someone found the death certificate of the other Shigechiyo Izumi (likely to have died after 1871 but before 1880). Neal 15:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the Japanese version of the article, both of Shigechiyo's parents died within half a year of his birth (the reason why is not stated), and he was raised by his grandfather. No doubt this makes tracking down any data even harder, and AFAIK the 6-year-old entry in the registry is the oldest bit of info available. Jpatokal 09:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, so if what you said is true, then the Shigechiyo Izumi born in 1880 couldn't have been his brother. Can you find the Japanese article? I know a Japanese professor of gerontology in my school. Neal 22:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What's "AFAIK", dear friends? Extremely sexy 11:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"AFAIK" = as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NealIRC (talk • contribs)

Thanks, my friend. Extremely sexy 21:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Guinness Book of Records (various editions) has stated that he was excused from military service in 1889 at the age of 24 because of his occupation as a sugar farmer. This supports the theory that he was the same person as was recorded in the 1871 census as a 6-year-old, and makes it unlikely that there was another Shigechiyo Izumi who was born in 1880 and who was named after a deceased brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.32.56 (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed: interesting thought. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate vs. birth-date

This is a comment (and my reply) posted on to my talk page, as there has been no reply, I'll post it here. Nothing bad, just want to note that I'll be undoing the undo (which could be construed as aggressive) - unless there's a reply.

In English, 'birthdate' is a word...not 'birth-date'.Ryoung122 12:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I tracked down the change you were referring to: Shigechiyo_Izumi. I'm not sure that you are right. According to merriam webster, there is no word "birthdate". According to dictionary.com, the two top suggestions are "birth date" and "birth-date". As a separate matter, why did you revert the whole change if you believe that only one word is incorrect, I believe that the entire correction can stand. Please comment if you feel otherwise. BananaFiend 10:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - I'm not sure how to link an edit, so here it is in an awkward form [1]

This has been undone yet again, this time with no explanation. I may instead break this up into 3 edits, so that if people do disagree with 1 part of it, at least I will know what they don't like. BananaFiend 11:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see that birth-date was put in by the same user who removed it. BananaFiend 12:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes: by me, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 10:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The citation disputing Izumi's age

Where is this from??? It reads like a quote but there is no indication of the source. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed so, because I forgot to add the source, and this will be fixed. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So I take it he will be considered the oldest man until someone reaches the age of 120 plus one day older than he lived. No matter what information we find, he will probably still be considered the oldest until his record is broken. William Buckley said that if we found out Columbus found the New World in 1493, no matter what it would stay 1492. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.177 (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Age problems.

If he appears in the first Japanese census of 1871, and died in 1986, he would be at least 115 years old. Therefore, saying he "might" be 105 is obviously wrong,

quote; "His name was recorded in Japan's first census of 1871" 29 + 86 = 115. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.50.198 (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, but he was age 6 at the time. 6+ 29+86 = 121 (PershingBoy)63.3.10.2 (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The necronym thing still applies. Brendan (talk, contribs) 09:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Rejected by Guinness

See page 83 in the 2011 edition (this was the Finnish edition, possibly different page in other editions). Christian Mortensen is now the male Guinness recordholder. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What did the book say (in English)? "New evidence has come to light that casts doubt..."' Izumi's case is still doubtful, GWR has not 100% rejected him. The mention of Christian Mortensen was simply a smart move to acknowledge the "runner-up". Brendan (talk, contribs) 09:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In the latest, 2012 edition, Mortensen is titled the oldest verfied man ever, and Izumi is not even mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.43.170 (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion in "longevity claims" list?

Okay, finally Izumi excluded from list of verified oldest people ever. But maybe it's time to add him in "longevity claims" list? Also, why this story with "older brother" is so cloudy? Why so poor information? Do family records contain information about this older brother? Is grave of this older brother in existence? Izumi's case is interesting, through disrated, so wanna see more clear information, something more then "Maybe birth sertificate belongs to older brother who died between X and Y years". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.212.146.10 (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)