This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kane Tanaka article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | A news item involving Kane Tanaka was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 25 April 2022. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I think it's Masima Leonora Noel, however Dorrisile Dervis and Tava Colo's age I think is true as well, just like Masima Leonora Noel.
Masima Leonora Noel is currently −1,679 days away until she turns 118.
Dorrisle Dervis is currently −1,663 days away until she turns 118.
Tava Colo is currently −1,666 days away until she turns 117.
Kane Tanaka is currently −1,655 days away until she turns 117.
Name | Date of Birth | Current Age |
---|---|---|
Masima Leonora Noel | 1901-12-09 | 122 years, 218 days |
Dorrisile Dervis | 1901-12-25 | 122 years, 202 days |
Tava Colo | 1902-12-22 | 121 years, 205 days |
Kane Tanaka | 1903-01-02 | 121 years, 194 days |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.29.4 ( talk) 01:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
What sources reveal these names?? Please make sure that they are not Wikipedia mirrors, AND that they are very reliable with the subject of longevity (including to whatever extent is possible if GWR or GRG or IDL is biased in any way.) Georgia guy ( talk) 01:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Their ages are true in my opinion, why do u always have to revert back to Kane Tanaka? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2605:A000:1103:144:B49A:BFBA:F899:4DF4 (
talk)
02:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
If Kane Tanaka gets the GWR certificate as the WOP, and what happens if we discover that she was actually a year older than her validated age, I may think her birth date is 2 January 1902, and she would turn 117 on 2 January instead of 116, but likely her birth date is 2 January 1903. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:91d1:b1f2:70b6:67b8:c321:8d0c ( talk) 00:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Edited to remove the quote from an interview "Mike sux dix and cox". Can't reach the source, so couldn't see what she actually said. I therefore removed the whole line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.60.68 ( talk) 08:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I made the article about Nabi Tajima in here, because her article was blocked. Do you want it to be about Nabi Tajima or Kane Tanaka.
Nabi Tajima was almost 2 1/2 years older than Kane Tanaka, the day when Nabi Tajima would've turn 118, the validated world's oldest living person was Kane Tanaka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1103:45:A86B:3DE:7FE6:F8A8 ( talk) 03:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Is she really dead?, when I saw an edit she died, there isn't any news or anything about it, just verifing, or is it just vandalism?.-- 2605:A000:1103:45:6D92:39FE:DA61:A8E ( talk) 19:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Three competing hypotheses seem to be here regarding what she credits her longevity to. One, at least, may be discounted: her grand-nephew's opinion that it is her belief in God (paragraph 4). This 3rd party opinion is more recently contradicted by the "family, sleep, and hope" statement of Newsweek (paragraph 3). Finally, the beginning of the fourth paragraph appears to be substantiating further claims, but doesn't specify what she is attributing to the sweets, coffee, and other beverages she consumes.
I would like to remove the statement from her grand-nephew, as it is both contradictory and misleading from Tanaka's own accreditations, but not being a long-standing member here, would like to ask if that is warranted in this case.
Mephisto Tabernacle ( talk) 18:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Text of "San Marcos couple celebrate aunt’s 113th year" from the San Diego Union Tribune, as it stands at this writing with byline Linda McIntosh.
MAY 6, 2016 1:59 PM Lake San Marcos residents Gary and Linda Okada Funakoshi recently visited Gary’s great-aunt Kane Tanaka, 113, who lives in Japan and celebrated her birthday earlier this year.
Tanaka likes to write poetry and still remembers her trip to the United States in the 1970s when she visited relatives in California and Colorado.
She gets around with the aid of a walker and lives in a nursing home.
Funakoshi said his great-aunt attributes her longevity to her faith in God.
Tanaka, a supercentenarian, is the 14th oldest person in the world, according to the Gerontology Research Group based in Los Angeles. She is the fifth oldest person living in Japan, Funakoshi said pointing to a list on Wikipedia.
linda.mcintosh@sduniontribune.co
Redacted apropos the actual text, but reverted because I overlooked the penultimate sentence. It's certainly a questionable assertion as a matter of fact per the below, the unlikelihood the real speech acts upon which it might be based were in English, the expected beliefs of a Japanese woman born in 1903, etc.
Would be the relevant articles here, the pie chart in the 2nd makes the impropriety of the current text clearer. 98.4.103.219 ( talk)
It definitely looks like there's a case of faulty translation here. I don't have the time to read through the sources right now, and I don't speak Japanese so that's not helpful, but I'll give it a go as soon as I have some time. Right now it seems pretty evident that the phrase that includes "God" should properly refer to the kami. Also it seems the quote might not have been hers. -- CoreGoon ( talk) 08:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new here on Wikipedia, but I found some very cool statistics on Kane Tanaka. It seems like it should be pretty important that Kane Tanaka could be the first verified person to make it to 118 in the 21st century, and that Japan is one of the countries with the highest longevity records. However, user JasonPhelps told me I should bring it up here on the Talk Page if I have questions. I did revert user JasonPhelps' edits to put the facts I found back, but am bringing it here to the talk page since that is what user JasonPhelps told me to do. Thank you--TravisSimmons TravisSimmons92 ( talk) 05:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I have noticed other users besides just myself trying to add at least a few of the following facts that one or two users keep deleting. User 141.126.101.68 has repeatedly tried to add back how Kane Tanaka is in 4th place for oldest verified person ever and I have seen at least one or two other users wanting the fact that Kane Tanaka will be the first verified person to attain 118 if she lived to January 2, 2021. So, I would like to confirm a Consensus for the following:
Items to Confirm Consensus on:
1) It should be added to the Kane Tanaka page that Kane Tanaka is the 4th oldest verified person (starting on September 18 it should be put on the page that she is the 3rd verified oldest person ever, since that is when she will reach 3rd place)
2) It should be mentioned on the Kane Tanaka page that Kane Tanaka will be the first person to attain age 118 in the 21st century, if she makes it to January 2, 2021. This is significant and not random trivia, because no one has yet obtained the age of 118 years or older and been verified within the 21st century. It also states verbatim in the following article "If Tanaka celebrates another birthday next year, she will be the first person since the 1990s to live to 118." Article that states this (it states it at the end of the article): https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/611595/kane-tanaka-worlds-oldest-living-person-turns-117
TravisSimmons92 ( talk) 19:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
1) Reject on basis of being repetitive because it's already on the table that is hyperlinked to the article. Maybe when Kane Tanaka passes Nabi Tajima's age, we could have in the article that Kane Tanaka is the oldest verified Japanese person ever, if there is a reliable source to back this up, since that would be a much more significant fact that stating Kane Tanaka is 4th or 3rd oldest verified person. JasonPhelps ( talk) 00:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
2) Reject 118 is a very random age. I would suggest maybe having a consensus that to put in someone being the first person to reach an age that the age should be divisible by 5 or 10, so that it's more significant and not random trivia so much. For example, if Kane Tanaka were to reach age 120, we could put the statement in then that she's the first person to be verified to reach age 120 in the 21st century, provided there is a reliable source to back this up. Or the first person to make it to 125 or 130 could be noted, if that ever happens. However, a random age like 118 is probably going to be deemed as random trivia. JasonPhelps ( talk) 00:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
2) Reject Wikipedia does not predict the future just like it wouldn’t in a sports event. It is not appropriate to hypothesize what will or will not be if Kane Tanaka reaches the age of 118 until it actually happens. TFBCT1 ( talk) 08:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Not much gets under my skin and I don't take things personal. I don't edit or remove content out of spite, however, I do revert poor edits, unsourced edits and vandalism, each of which it seems you have contributed to here, and a few other pages too MattSucci ( talk) 12:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Just saw this...nope. Not buying it...you said my edits were “getting tiresome”. Must have gotten under your skin/been taken personally as no one complains of things being “tiresome” to them unless they are being bothered. Now you accuse me of “vandalism” as well. I’ll own to “poor and unsourced” while I was learning the ropes and attempting good faith edits as a newer editor but you are continually violating WP:CIVIL in responses to editors you have disagreements with. Drop the elitist attitude and learn to deal in a adult manner with other editors. 141.126.101.68 ( talk) 03:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Kane Tanaka is Japanese. Assuming my knowledge is correct, in Japan a married woman's parents are defined exclusively as her husband's biological parents, not her own. Any information on how the infobox should deal with this statement?? Georgia guy ( talk) 01:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I took a shot at improving the flow of the article's main body. I now need someone to check the sources for accuracy as I do not have access to all of them. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I am proposing we add the following information to the lead to comply with WP:MOS:LEAD:
WP:MOSLEAD states:
Having information on Kane's life is important here as the majority of the article is based off of it. I disagree on calling it WP:TRIVIA as this is not loosely based miscellaneous information. We also run the risk of a WP:NPOV issue by not describing Kane outside the contest of her records per the sources given.
I am pinging DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk · contribs) per the recent reverts. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I removed some totally unnecessary info and rewrote some parts which have subsequently been reverted by Knowledgekid87. "She graduated primary school." I mean, seriously?? And irrelevant trivia about her husband. Would anybody like to back me up on this and help return her article to something vaguely resembling an encyclopedia article. Or should it be left to the supercentenarian fanboys to ruin? MattSucci ( talk) 18:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
In the article: "She has five grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren.[11]" Is it possibly a sign that her age is fake? 91.82.135.145 ( talk) 14:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I just want to remind IP and named editors alike that there have been no sources so far covering Tanaka's 118th birthday. Even if there were, then it would need to have additional importance rather than "3rd to reach x". - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I don’t agree it needs “additional importance”- why? Define “additional importance”. What’s the justification for leaving out her joining Calment and Knauss? The whole point of her Wiki page is to celebrate her milestones and being the third person to reach 118 (to my mind)is definitely noteworthy. Kudos to Georgia guy fixing my badly worded attempt to note this accomplishment. Here’s a reference to her 118th....yes not an actual party which I’m sure will be forthcoming but nonetheless: https://the110club.com/kane-tanaka-118th-birthday-t24656.html 141.126.101.68 ( talk) 03:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree Wiki is not for congratulations or soapboxing and nowhere did I use those terms- “celebrate” was admittedly a very poor descriptor however, and I should have used “note” or “observe” to avoid semantics debate, apologies. Any Wiki page on a person is generally because they are noteworthy or “celebratory” in some manner. I was attempting to query why reporting reliable sources noting or “celebrating” her reaching 118 is somehow as far as Wikipedia should go rather than noting additional milestones that might come with that age. If consensus shows her being one of only three people in history to reach 118 isn’t particularly noteworthy or doesn’t need to be pointed out but can be inferred by her age alone that’s fine...I submit it’s fairly noteworthy however. 141.126.101.68 ( talk) 17:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
A fair point. Made me look at Sarah Knauss page-it doesn’t note anywhere there she was “one of only two people” to hit 119. It wouldn’t be the first time I was all wet in my thinking....again fine with consensus on if the milestone under discussion shouldn’t be included on her page. Fairly new to Wiki editing and talk page, feeling my way as I go...I’m sure it shows! 141.126.101.68 ( talk) 17:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
This discussion summarises what is appropriate for longevity biographies. It was achieved by consensus in 2014 and has not been challenged or amended, let alone overturned, since. It includes examples of what is NOT appropriate, some of which apply to this article. It is also long-standing consensus that statements such as "she is the third person to reach 118" need to be accompanied by a source which states that fact, and that to merely reference a list (such as the GRG table) is insufficient. Being the biography of a living person statements which are not accompanied by an appropriate citation can be removed at any time per WP:BLP. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 19:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Information about her husband's and her son's military service is trivial. Having worked in a noodle shop is trivial. Being fed breast milk from wet nurses is trivial. Traveling to the USA to visit relatives is trivial. And there are a few others that, in my opinion and if consensus agrees, shouldn't be in the article. MattSucci ( talk) 22:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Just coming here to comment per request, but I think that this issue can be solved with some simple consensus-building options, like a poll. When the problems with longevity articles were pervasive, I think that broad-based policy requiring the input of outside editors was very important. Now, however, there are far fewer articles on individual supercentenarians and thus very few problems. Given that, I think that in this case a simple poll among interested users could probably form the basis for consensus on this page. If there were many articles, I think that a bigger conversation would be necessary because going page by page to develop consensus for each would be tedious. At this point, however, I think it would take far less time just to put up contested lines to a simple poll.
For what it is worth, I don't see anything here that is a "must-go", but perhaps I'm jaded by all the years of terrible longevity-related articles that I encountered. But I can also see lines in the biography that definitely bring back those memories and I certainly would not be sad to see them go. I do agree, however, that everything must be cited; if there is not a third-party, reliable source that mentions her being the third-oldest person ever, then it does not need to be there. Even if "simple math" can prove it, if it's not being discussed in sources, it's trivial, and that is reflected in past consensus. Canadian Paul 05:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
But here are some of the issues... 1) There's more than what needs to be on the page in terms of Kane's husband's military service. A simple statement that he was in the military would suffice. We don't need also this info about him being drafted from 1937 to 1939. 2) I removed the part about the noodle store, because I didn't see a source backing this up. Things need to be backed up with sources! Also, is this really longevity related? This seems more like personal information about the person than a longevity article. There certainly isn't anything about this contributing to Kane's longevity. 3) Why do we need to know Kane Tanaka converted to Christianity if there are no articles stating that it contributed to her longevity? 4) Why do we need to know that Kane Tanaka traveled to the United States to California and Colorado? Doesn't this seem pretty trivial? 5) Under the Health and Longevity section this is a long list of illnesses that Kane Tanaka suffered from. Doesn't this seem a bit excessive? Wouldn't be better to just leave at mentioning the colorectal cancer at age 103 (since that is more recent and maybe related to her longevity more since it was something that happened when she was 100+), and take out all the other illnesses mentioned? Cataract surgery? Doesn't this seem a bit excessive?.
It just seems like we got a lot of details on this page that don't need to be there. JasonPhelps ( talk) 21:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
JasonPhelps ( talk) 04:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think a redirect is in order and do believe that she more or less deserves her own page, however, the unnecessary facts within should be trimmed to leave only longevity related info and the bare minimum of biographical facts that common sense says should be included. Sagittarian Milky Way points out that there are "literally about a million biographies here. Random baseballers or footballers from teams no one has ever heard of and stuff." and I agree that many of these are stubs, shouldn't exist or should be redirected, but they certainly don't contain irrelevant facts about their spouses or a trip to wherever in the 70s. To me it looks like some supercentenarian (110 Club) fans have got hold of this article and are refusing to let go, and will try and use any Wikipedia rule and force talk page consensus to keep it how it is. Does she deserve a page? Probably. Should it be padded out just for the sake of it? No. MattSucci ( talk) 08:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This whole section amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT per "This is the converse to I like it directly above. While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also Pointing at policy.)" WHERE ARE THE POLICY BASED ARGUEMENTS? Why do editors feel the need to gut this article because they see information they deem as trivial? Are the sources used not reliable? We should be giving due weight to the coverage given by this person, and set personal grievances aside. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Title says it all - I open my watchlist, I see people adding, removing, re-writing and then re-adding content over whether it's viable or not for a BlP, and then the same takes place on the Talk page. It might be for the best that this article gets a little more protected for a while just to calm down the rate of edits and maybe allow some encyclopedic work and the building of a consensus to take place. -- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) 21:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)18:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Recently there has been a content dispute regarding things that should or shouldn't go inside of this article. I started this RfC as a way to get additional input on the matter. Should we maintain an article for Kane Tanaka or should we redirect the article while keeping a bare minimal description about her longevity? -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
19:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Merge/redirect the page to List of Japanese supercentenarians or List of the verified oldest people
The page stays status quo
Guys i don't think the pages should be merged it is not gonna fit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicgueyetoofhioof ( talk • contribs) 09:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I found two more recent stories about Kane's upcoming Olympic torchbearer in May. We can't add this yet per WP:CRYSTAL, but she would break a record as the oldest torchbearer ever. I also found a new interview she did with TVTokyo at the end of January. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The photo in the article is sourced to a Reddit post, which itself does not give any source. Can we find a reliable source to say that this photo is in fact of Kane Tanaka, and not some other Japanese woman from the first part of the 20th century? Many sources may pull the image from Wikipedia for this articles so we need to make sure we've got this right. Ganesha811 ( talk) 13:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove
Her hobbies include calligraphy, and solving arithmetic problems.
and add
Her hobbies include calligraphy and solving arithmetic problems.
The comma isn't needed. 64.203.186.86 ( talk) 17:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Could we please change the photo to the old black-and-white one? The current colored one is very... odd. Fakescientist8000 ( talk) 12:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
B 119.12.232.19 ( talk) 11:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Does someone know one of her children name 179.113.223.249 ( talk) 15:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Although, I have used Wikipedia for many years now. I have only made one edit a long time ago. Therefore, I am not sure how, or if it is right to do so, to make an edit. On this page, it states that Kane Tanaka's birthday is on the 2nd of January, 1903. Also, the page states that she was born and currently resides in Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, Japan. Furthermore, the page states that she is 118 years and 364 days old. At the writing of this message, It is the 1st of January, 2022 at 7:15 pm (EST or my time), and where she both was born and currently resides it is the 2nd of January, 2022 at 9:15 am (JST). My question is this, "Is it not her birthday right now, due to her current location and place of birth?" When I originally loaded the page right at midnight (JST), Kane Tanaka's age stated that she was 119 years and 0 days old, as I believe it should state. After coming back to the page a little after an hour or so, it seems to revert to 118 years and 364 days old. To me, it seems as if someone looked at her birthdate (not taking into account of the time zone), and they changed it to reflect their time zone/date. In short, it seems to be an accident. With all that said, should the page reflect her age in the (JST) time zone? If I am totally off base, I am sorry, and please disregard this message. Thanks!
No more than I posted this, her age stated, again, that she is 119 years and 0 days old. Therefore, please disregard this message, and I am sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused anyone. Again, thanks! Leonardpatat ( talk) 01:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardpatat ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I feel that the first sentence pretty much explains it all when it comes to her age. As such the following notions seem trivial:
Again, two other woman have passed this mark. Its more notable to say that she is the third oldest woman in recorded history than mention 119 more than it needs to be. Now the 22+ year lapse between two woman reaching 119 years old is another story here. This might be picked up by reliable sources in age study which is something to potentially look for. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Why does the article say she is 119, then add number of days past this age? This will only mean this article has to be updated every day. YTKJ ( talk) 07:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible to change the image to colored, as shown here [6]? Severe storm 28 00:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Are Wikipedians sure that Kane Tanaka has died? This morning (April 25 2022), I did a quick search for her on the internet, and cannot find any sources saying she has died outside Wikipedia. YTKJ ( talk) 07:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
If Tanaka would be the adoptive daughter rather than the mother, she would only have been around 100 years old. 213.65.211.63 ( talk) 19:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add these sources in English regarding her death, to the one in Japanese that's already in the article. Those that can't read Japanese might find them interesting.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220425-world-s-oldest-person-dies-in-japan-at-119
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/04/25/national/kane-tanaka-obituary-record/ 194.69.14.132 ( talk) 09:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Should the article say that after her death, the world's oldest person in the 118-year-old person Sister Andre? YTKJ ( talk) 21:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I think we should change the infobox image of Tanaka to the later image that depicts her in her later life. Pinging @ Fakescientist8000: for input. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that we should find a fair use image of Tanaka that fits well in the infobox. Because Tanaka is known for being the second oldest person ever, we should use an image of her in her later life. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Kane Tanaka probably was born at 12:15 AM (15:15 GMT on Thursday, New Year's Day) on Friday, 2 January 1903, and died at 6:11 PM (09:11 GMT) on the Easter Tuesday of this year. Birthtimes and deathtimes are important because the difference of timezones. The standard timezone of Wikipedia is GMT, not including DST.
Link of the notice of Asia News Network - 26 April 2022
Link of the notice of The Japan News - 26 April 2022
177.95.121.51 ( talk) 09:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The article and references clearly state Kane Tanaka was a Christian. She would not be speaking of Shinto kami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikocrensh ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kane Tanaka article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | A news item involving Kane Tanaka was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 25 April 2022. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I think it's Masima Leonora Noel, however Dorrisile Dervis and Tava Colo's age I think is true as well, just like Masima Leonora Noel.
Masima Leonora Noel is currently −1,679 days away until she turns 118.
Dorrisle Dervis is currently −1,663 days away until she turns 118.
Tava Colo is currently −1,666 days away until she turns 117.
Kane Tanaka is currently −1,655 days away until she turns 117.
Name | Date of Birth | Current Age |
---|---|---|
Masima Leonora Noel | 1901-12-09 | 122 years, 218 days |
Dorrisile Dervis | 1901-12-25 | 122 years, 202 days |
Tava Colo | 1902-12-22 | 121 years, 205 days |
Kane Tanaka | 1903-01-02 | 121 years, 194 days |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.29.4 ( talk) 01:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
What sources reveal these names?? Please make sure that they are not Wikipedia mirrors, AND that they are very reliable with the subject of longevity (including to whatever extent is possible if GWR or GRG or IDL is biased in any way.) Georgia guy ( talk) 01:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Their ages are true in my opinion, why do u always have to revert back to Kane Tanaka? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2605:A000:1103:144:B49A:BFBA:F899:4DF4 (
talk)
02:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
If Kane Tanaka gets the GWR certificate as the WOP, and what happens if we discover that she was actually a year older than her validated age, I may think her birth date is 2 January 1902, and she would turn 117 on 2 January instead of 116, but likely her birth date is 2 January 1903. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:91d1:b1f2:70b6:67b8:c321:8d0c ( talk) 00:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Edited to remove the quote from an interview "Mike sux dix and cox". Can't reach the source, so couldn't see what she actually said. I therefore removed the whole line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.60.68 ( talk) 08:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I made the article about Nabi Tajima in here, because her article was blocked. Do you want it to be about Nabi Tajima or Kane Tanaka.
Nabi Tajima was almost 2 1/2 years older than Kane Tanaka, the day when Nabi Tajima would've turn 118, the validated world's oldest living person was Kane Tanaka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1103:45:A86B:3DE:7FE6:F8A8 ( talk) 03:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Is she really dead?, when I saw an edit she died, there isn't any news or anything about it, just verifing, or is it just vandalism?.-- 2605:A000:1103:45:6D92:39FE:DA61:A8E ( talk) 19:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Three competing hypotheses seem to be here regarding what she credits her longevity to. One, at least, may be discounted: her grand-nephew's opinion that it is her belief in God (paragraph 4). This 3rd party opinion is more recently contradicted by the "family, sleep, and hope" statement of Newsweek (paragraph 3). Finally, the beginning of the fourth paragraph appears to be substantiating further claims, but doesn't specify what she is attributing to the sweets, coffee, and other beverages she consumes.
I would like to remove the statement from her grand-nephew, as it is both contradictory and misleading from Tanaka's own accreditations, but not being a long-standing member here, would like to ask if that is warranted in this case.
Mephisto Tabernacle ( talk) 18:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Text of "San Marcos couple celebrate aunt’s 113th year" from the San Diego Union Tribune, as it stands at this writing with byline Linda McIntosh.
MAY 6, 2016 1:59 PM Lake San Marcos residents Gary and Linda Okada Funakoshi recently visited Gary’s great-aunt Kane Tanaka, 113, who lives in Japan and celebrated her birthday earlier this year.
Tanaka likes to write poetry and still remembers her trip to the United States in the 1970s when she visited relatives in California and Colorado.
She gets around with the aid of a walker and lives in a nursing home.
Funakoshi said his great-aunt attributes her longevity to her faith in God.
Tanaka, a supercentenarian, is the 14th oldest person in the world, according to the Gerontology Research Group based in Los Angeles. She is the fifth oldest person living in Japan, Funakoshi said pointing to a list on Wikipedia.
linda.mcintosh@sduniontribune.co
Redacted apropos the actual text, but reverted because I overlooked the penultimate sentence. It's certainly a questionable assertion as a matter of fact per the below, the unlikelihood the real speech acts upon which it might be based were in English, the expected beliefs of a Japanese woman born in 1903, etc.
Would be the relevant articles here, the pie chart in the 2nd makes the impropriety of the current text clearer. 98.4.103.219 ( talk)
It definitely looks like there's a case of faulty translation here. I don't have the time to read through the sources right now, and I don't speak Japanese so that's not helpful, but I'll give it a go as soon as I have some time. Right now it seems pretty evident that the phrase that includes "God" should properly refer to the kami. Also it seems the quote might not have been hers. -- CoreGoon ( talk) 08:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new here on Wikipedia, but I found some very cool statistics on Kane Tanaka. It seems like it should be pretty important that Kane Tanaka could be the first verified person to make it to 118 in the 21st century, and that Japan is one of the countries with the highest longevity records. However, user JasonPhelps told me I should bring it up here on the Talk Page if I have questions. I did revert user JasonPhelps' edits to put the facts I found back, but am bringing it here to the talk page since that is what user JasonPhelps told me to do. Thank you--TravisSimmons TravisSimmons92 ( talk) 05:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I have noticed other users besides just myself trying to add at least a few of the following facts that one or two users keep deleting. User 141.126.101.68 has repeatedly tried to add back how Kane Tanaka is in 4th place for oldest verified person ever and I have seen at least one or two other users wanting the fact that Kane Tanaka will be the first verified person to attain 118 if she lived to January 2, 2021. So, I would like to confirm a Consensus for the following:
Items to Confirm Consensus on:
1) It should be added to the Kane Tanaka page that Kane Tanaka is the 4th oldest verified person (starting on September 18 it should be put on the page that she is the 3rd verified oldest person ever, since that is when she will reach 3rd place)
2) It should be mentioned on the Kane Tanaka page that Kane Tanaka will be the first person to attain age 118 in the 21st century, if she makes it to January 2, 2021. This is significant and not random trivia, because no one has yet obtained the age of 118 years or older and been verified within the 21st century. It also states verbatim in the following article "If Tanaka celebrates another birthday next year, she will be the first person since the 1990s to live to 118." Article that states this (it states it at the end of the article): https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/611595/kane-tanaka-worlds-oldest-living-person-turns-117
TravisSimmons92 ( talk) 19:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
1) Reject on basis of being repetitive because it's already on the table that is hyperlinked to the article. Maybe when Kane Tanaka passes Nabi Tajima's age, we could have in the article that Kane Tanaka is the oldest verified Japanese person ever, if there is a reliable source to back this up, since that would be a much more significant fact that stating Kane Tanaka is 4th or 3rd oldest verified person. JasonPhelps ( talk) 00:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
2) Reject 118 is a very random age. I would suggest maybe having a consensus that to put in someone being the first person to reach an age that the age should be divisible by 5 or 10, so that it's more significant and not random trivia so much. For example, if Kane Tanaka were to reach age 120, we could put the statement in then that she's the first person to be verified to reach age 120 in the 21st century, provided there is a reliable source to back this up. Or the first person to make it to 125 or 130 could be noted, if that ever happens. However, a random age like 118 is probably going to be deemed as random trivia. JasonPhelps ( talk) 00:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
2) Reject Wikipedia does not predict the future just like it wouldn’t in a sports event. It is not appropriate to hypothesize what will or will not be if Kane Tanaka reaches the age of 118 until it actually happens. TFBCT1 ( talk) 08:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Not much gets under my skin and I don't take things personal. I don't edit or remove content out of spite, however, I do revert poor edits, unsourced edits and vandalism, each of which it seems you have contributed to here, and a few other pages too MattSucci ( talk) 12:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Just saw this...nope. Not buying it...you said my edits were “getting tiresome”. Must have gotten under your skin/been taken personally as no one complains of things being “tiresome” to them unless they are being bothered. Now you accuse me of “vandalism” as well. I’ll own to “poor and unsourced” while I was learning the ropes and attempting good faith edits as a newer editor but you are continually violating WP:CIVIL in responses to editors you have disagreements with. Drop the elitist attitude and learn to deal in a adult manner with other editors. 141.126.101.68 ( talk) 03:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Kane Tanaka is Japanese. Assuming my knowledge is correct, in Japan a married woman's parents are defined exclusively as her husband's biological parents, not her own. Any information on how the infobox should deal with this statement?? Georgia guy ( talk) 01:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I took a shot at improving the flow of the article's main body. I now need someone to check the sources for accuracy as I do not have access to all of them. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I am proposing we add the following information to the lead to comply with WP:MOS:LEAD:
WP:MOSLEAD states:
Having information on Kane's life is important here as the majority of the article is based off of it. I disagree on calling it WP:TRIVIA as this is not loosely based miscellaneous information. We also run the risk of a WP:NPOV issue by not describing Kane outside the contest of her records per the sources given.
I am pinging DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk · contribs) per the recent reverts. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I removed some totally unnecessary info and rewrote some parts which have subsequently been reverted by Knowledgekid87. "She graduated primary school." I mean, seriously?? And irrelevant trivia about her husband. Would anybody like to back me up on this and help return her article to something vaguely resembling an encyclopedia article. Or should it be left to the supercentenarian fanboys to ruin? MattSucci ( talk) 18:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
In the article: "She has five grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren.[11]" Is it possibly a sign that her age is fake? 91.82.135.145 ( talk) 14:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I just want to remind IP and named editors alike that there have been no sources so far covering Tanaka's 118th birthday. Even if there were, then it would need to have additional importance rather than "3rd to reach x". - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I don’t agree it needs “additional importance”- why? Define “additional importance”. What’s the justification for leaving out her joining Calment and Knauss? The whole point of her Wiki page is to celebrate her milestones and being the third person to reach 118 (to my mind)is definitely noteworthy. Kudos to Georgia guy fixing my badly worded attempt to note this accomplishment. Here’s a reference to her 118th....yes not an actual party which I’m sure will be forthcoming but nonetheless: https://the110club.com/kane-tanaka-118th-birthday-t24656.html 141.126.101.68 ( talk) 03:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree Wiki is not for congratulations or soapboxing and nowhere did I use those terms- “celebrate” was admittedly a very poor descriptor however, and I should have used “note” or “observe” to avoid semantics debate, apologies. Any Wiki page on a person is generally because they are noteworthy or “celebratory” in some manner. I was attempting to query why reporting reliable sources noting or “celebrating” her reaching 118 is somehow as far as Wikipedia should go rather than noting additional milestones that might come with that age. If consensus shows her being one of only three people in history to reach 118 isn’t particularly noteworthy or doesn’t need to be pointed out but can be inferred by her age alone that’s fine...I submit it’s fairly noteworthy however. 141.126.101.68 ( talk) 17:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
A fair point. Made me look at Sarah Knauss page-it doesn’t note anywhere there she was “one of only two people” to hit 119. It wouldn’t be the first time I was all wet in my thinking....again fine with consensus on if the milestone under discussion shouldn’t be included on her page. Fairly new to Wiki editing and talk page, feeling my way as I go...I’m sure it shows! 141.126.101.68 ( talk) 17:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
This discussion summarises what is appropriate for longevity biographies. It was achieved by consensus in 2014 and has not been challenged or amended, let alone overturned, since. It includes examples of what is NOT appropriate, some of which apply to this article. It is also long-standing consensus that statements such as "she is the third person to reach 118" need to be accompanied by a source which states that fact, and that to merely reference a list (such as the GRG table) is insufficient. Being the biography of a living person statements which are not accompanied by an appropriate citation can be removed at any time per WP:BLP. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 19:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Information about her husband's and her son's military service is trivial. Having worked in a noodle shop is trivial. Being fed breast milk from wet nurses is trivial. Traveling to the USA to visit relatives is trivial. And there are a few others that, in my opinion and if consensus agrees, shouldn't be in the article. MattSucci ( talk) 22:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Just coming here to comment per request, but I think that this issue can be solved with some simple consensus-building options, like a poll. When the problems with longevity articles were pervasive, I think that broad-based policy requiring the input of outside editors was very important. Now, however, there are far fewer articles on individual supercentenarians and thus very few problems. Given that, I think that in this case a simple poll among interested users could probably form the basis for consensus on this page. If there were many articles, I think that a bigger conversation would be necessary because going page by page to develop consensus for each would be tedious. At this point, however, I think it would take far less time just to put up contested lines to a simple poll.
For what it is worth, I don't see anything here that is a "must-go", but perhaps I'm jaded by all the years of terrible longevity-related articles that I encountered. But I can also see lines in the biography that definitely bring back those memories and I certainly would not be sad to see them go. I do agree, however, that everything must be cited; if there is not a third-party, reliable source that mentions her being the third-oldest person ever, then it does not need to be there. Even if "simple math" can prove it, if it's not being discussed in sources, it's trivial, and that is reflected in past consensus. Canadian Paul 05:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
But here are some of the issues... 1) There's more than what needs to be on the page in terms of Kane's husband's military service. A simple statement that he was in the military would suffice. We don't need also this info about him being drafted from 1937 to 1939. 2) I removed the part about the noodle store, because I didn't see a source backing this up. Things need to be backed up with sources! Also, is this really longevity related? This seems more like personal information about the person than a longevity article. There certainly isn't anything about this contributing to Kane's longevity. 3) Why do we need to know Kane Tanaka converted to Christianity if there are no articles stating that it contributed to her longevity? 4) Why do we need to know that Kane Tanaka traveled to the United States to California and Colorado? Doesn't this seem pretty trivial? 5) Under the Health and Longevity section this is a long list of illnesses that Kane Tanaka suffered from. Doesn't this seem a bit excessive? Wouldn't be better to just leave at mentioning the colorectal cancer at age 103 (since that is more recent and maybe related to her longevity more since it was something that happened when she was 100+), and take out all the other illnesses mentioned? Cataract surgery? Doesn't this seem a bit excessive?.
It just seems like we got a lot of details on this page that don't need to be there. JasonPhelps ( talk) 21:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
JasonPhelps ( talk) 04:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think a redirect is in order and do believe that she more or less deserves her own page, however, the unnecessary facts within should be trimmed to leave only longevity related info and the bare minimum of biographical facts that common sense says should be included. Sagittarian Milky Way points out that there are "literally about a million biographies here. Random baseballers or footballers from teams no one has ever heard of and stuff." and I agree that many of these are stubs, shouldn't exist or should be redirected, but they certainly don't contain irrelevant facts about their spouses or a trip to wherever in the 70s. To me it looks like some supercentenarian (110 Club) fans have got hold of this article and are refusing to let go, and will try and use any Wikipedia rule and force talk page consensus to keep it how it is. Does she deserve a page? Probably. Should it be padded out just for the sake of it? No. MattSucci ( talk) 08:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This whole section amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT per "This is the converse to I like it directly above. While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also Pointing at policy.)" WHERE ARE THE POLICY BASED ARGUEMENTS? Why do editors feel the need to gut this article because they see information they deem as trivial? Are the sources used not reliable? We should be giving due weight to the coverage given by this person, and set personal grievances aside. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Title says it all - I open my watchlist, I see people adding, removing, re-writing and then re-adding content over whether it's viable or not for a BlP, and then the same takes place on the Talk page. It might be for the best that this article gets a little more protected for a while just to calm down the rate of edits and maybe allow some encyclopedic work and the building of a consensus to take place. -- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) 21:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)18:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Recently there has been a content dispute regarding things that should or shouldn't go inside of this article. I started this RfC as a way to get additional input on the matter. Should we maintain an article for Kane Tanaka or should we redirect the article while keeping a bare minimal description about her longevity? -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
19:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Merge/redirect the page to List of Japanese supercentenarians or List of the verified oldest people
The page stays status quo
Guys i don't think the pages should be merged it is not gonna fit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicgueyetoofhioof ( talk • contribs) 09:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I found two more recent stories about Kane's upcoming Olympic torchbearer in May. We can't add this yet per WP:CRYSTAL, but she would break a record as the oldest torchbearer ever. I also found a new interview she did with TVTokyo at the end of January. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The photo in the article is sourced to a Reddit post, which itself does not give any source. Can we find a reliable source to say that this photo is in fact of Kane Tanaka, and not some other Japanese woman from the first part of the 20th century? Many sources may pull the image from Wikipedia for this articles so we need to make sure we've got this right. Ganesha811 ( talk) 13:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove
Her hobbies include calligraphy, and solving arithmetic problems.
and add
Her hobbies include calligraphy and solving arithmetic problems.
The comma isn't needed. 64.203.186.86 ( talk) 17:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Could we please change the photo to the old black-and-white one? The current colored one is very... odd. Fakescientist8000 ( talk) 12:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
B 119.12.232.19 ( talk) 11:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Does someone know one of her children name 179.113.223.249 ( talk) 15:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Although, I have used Wikipedia for many years now. I have only made one edit a long time ago. Therefore, I am not sure how, or if it is right to do so, to make an edit. On this page, it states that Kane Tanaka's birthday is on the 2nd of January, 1903. Also, the page states that she was born and currently resides in Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, Japan. Furthermore, the page states that she is 118 years and 364 days old. At the writing of this message, It is the 1st of January, 2022 at 7:15 pm (EST or my time), and where she both was born and currently resides it is the 2nd of January, 2022 at 9:15 am (JST). My question is this, "Is it not her birthday right now, due to her current location and place of birth?" When I originally loaded the page right at midnight (JST), Kane Tanaka's age stated that she was 119 years and 0 days old, as I believe it should state. After coming back to the page a little after an hour or so, it seems to revert to 118 years and 364 days old. To me, it seems as if someone looked at her birthdate (not taking into account of the time zone), and they changed it to reflect their time zone/date. In short, it seems to be an accident. With all that said, should the page reflect her age in the (JST) time zone? If I am totally off base, I am sorry, and please disregard this message. Thanks!
No more than I posted this, her age stated, again, that she is 119 years and 0 days old. Therefore, please disregard this message, and I am sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused anyone. Again, thanks! Leonardpatat ( talk) 01:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardpatat ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I feel that the first sentence pretty much explains it all when it comes to her age. As such the following notions seem trivial:
Again, two other woman have passed this mark. Its more notable to say that she is the third oldest woman in recorded history than mention 119 more than it needs to be. Now the 22+ year lapse between two woman reaching 119 years old is another story here. This might be picked up by reliable sources in age study which is something to potentially look for. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Why does the article say she is 119, then add number of days past this age? This will only mean this article has to be updated every day. YTKJ ( talk) 07:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible to change the image to colored, as shown here [6]? Severe storm 28 00:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Are Wikipedians sure that Kane Tanaka has died? This morning (April 25 2022), I did a quick search for her on the internet, and cannot find any sources saying she has died outside Wikipedia. YTKJ ( talk) 07:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
If Tanaka would be the adoptive daughter rather than the mother, she would only have been around 100 years old. 213.65.211.63 ( talk) 19:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add these sources in English regarding her death, to the one in Japanese that's already in the article. Those that can't read Japanese might find them interesting.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220425-world-s-oldest-person-dies-in-japan-at-119
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/04/25/national/kane-tanaka-obituary-record/ 194.69.14.132 ( talk) 09:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Should the article say that after her death, the world's oldest person in the 118-year-old person Sister Andre? YTKJ ( talk) 21:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I think we should change the infobox image of Tanaka to the later image that depicts her in her later life. Pinging @ Fakescientist8000: for input. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that we should find a fair use image of Tanaka that fits well in the infobox. Because Tanaka is known for being the second oldest person ever, we should use an image of her in her later life. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Kane Tanaka probably was born at 12:15 AM (15:15 GMT on Thursday, New Year's Day) on Friday, 2 January 1903, and died at 6:11 PM (09:11 GMT) on the Easter Tuesday of this year. Birthtimes and deathtimes are important because the difference of timezones. The standard timezone of Wikipedia is GMT, not including DST.
Link of the notice of Asia News Network - 26 April 2022
Link of the notice of The Japan News - 26 April 2022
177.95.121.51 ( talk) 09:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The article and references clearly state Kane Tanaka was a Christian. She would not be speaking of Shinto kami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikocrensh ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)