Talk:Shigechiyo Izumi

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Refer to Izumi as a Centenarian, and not a Supercentenarian 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  105 vs 120 Controversey 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yes: by me, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 10:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthdate vs. birth-date

message: 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)
replies: text: Indeed so, because I forgot to add the source, and this will be fixed. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The citation disputing Izumi's age 

message: 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)
replies: text: The necronym thing still applies. Brendan (talk, contribs) 09:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age problems. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rejected by Guinness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inclusion in "longevity claims" list?