Talk:Kane Tanaka

Oldest Living Person

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 −1,836 days away until she turns 118.
Dorrisle Dervis is currently −1,820 days away until she turns 118.
Tava Colo is currently −1,823 days away until she turns 117.
Kane Tanaka is currently −1,812 days away until she turns 117.

Name	Date of Birth	Current Age
Masima Leonora Noel	1901-12-09	123 years, 9 days
Dorrisile Dervis	1901-12-25	122 years, 359 days
Tava Colo	1902-12-22	121 years, 362 days
Kane Tanaka	1903-01-02	121 years, 351 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)

Your opinion counts for nothing. STOP wasting everybody's time with these pointless posts. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:47, 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 have found a website that says Masima Noel is 119, but the website also says the date of her birth is unknown. So, it looks as Kana Tanaka is the world's oldest living person for whom a reliable birth certificate can be found. YTKJ (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• @YTKJ: Not true, see: Longevity claims. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Kane Tanaka is the oldest living person with documented and verified age. However, Nikolay Zak, the Russian gerontologist who has sparked a dispute over Jeanne Calment, has a theory that Tanaka may have been confused with her adoptive daughter who is claimed to have died young of cancer. Zak's question is: How could the adoptive daughter die of cancer while Kane herself could survive cancer, and isn't there any possibility that Kane and her adoptive daughter have become confused due to an identity switch like the Calment case? If Kane Tanaka has been confused with her adoptive daughter, she would be "only" around 100 years old as of 2022 rather than 119. 213.65.211.63 (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Article

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)

Dead?

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)

It's just vandalism. Georgia guy (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Not anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.95.224 (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Confusing attribution of success

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)

The statement from her grand-nephew is well-sourced to a press interview, and properly attributed to him as he relayed it from her. No reason to remove it. I have edited the text about Tanaka's drinking habits: she did not credit those things for long life, she just enjoys drinking them. — JFG ^talk 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Entirety of the text provided as source for an apparent confabulation/forced translation.

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.

• Kami and
• Religion in Japan

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)

cf. this, "Her great-nephew, Gary Funakoshi, has suggested that her longevity may in part be due to the Shinto religion that she subscribes to, which places a focus on worshipping kami, or, spirits". So looks like the SD paper is the source of the distortion, not the Funakoshis. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

Interesting Statistics on Kane Tanaka

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)

Your edits were of very, very little encyclopaedic benefit and I have therefore deleted them. Should you wish to re-add them, and I can't imagine why you would from a content POV, please gain consensus first.MattSucci (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

TravisSimmons92, a couple things to think about based on your post: 118 is a pretty random age to say someone is the first verified person to make it to. If Kane Tanaka makes it to age 120, then maybe we could make a case for putting the line in saying that she's the first person to make it to 120 in the 21st century, if there's a reliable source that specifically states this. 120 would be more significant. 118 just isn't as significant, and I think that's why other users see this kind of as fanfluff and not really encyclopedic. Japan being one of the countries with the highest longevity records seems like a really unrelated fact, like something that should be more on a Wikipedia page about Japan or Japan's Population Demographics instead of Kane Tanaka where it's more about Kane Tanaka and specifically Kane Tanaka's longevity as opposed to the country of Japan overall. Mentioning Japan's longevity just seems off topic for this page. JasonPhelps (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

#3 Reference and #12 Reference Same Reference on Kane Tanaka Page

I was noticing that the 3rd reference and the 12th reference are exactly the same under the References section on the Kane Tanaka page. I think this may have occurred from the mass number of edits TravisSimmons92 made to the page that a lot had to be undone. I would try to combine them into one reference on the page, but I'm not exactly sure how to combine two duplicate references into one so that it will cite the same reference twice. Maybe someone can fix this that knows how to do it right? JasonPhelps (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Appears to be a Consensus Present for adding the following facts to the Kane Tanaka Page

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)

@JasonPhelps: If she lives to 118 then the door open up to researchers who study Maximum life span. Technology exists now that was not available in the 1990s when it comes to Jeanne Calment and Sarah Knauss. Both of those women have had their ages disputed at some point in time as outliers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

To user 141.126.101.68.

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)

Defining Kane Tanaka's parents

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)

Article flow

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)

Just some thoughts... the article seems to have enough to meet WP:DEPTH. We actually need more information on her life covered in a variety of sources rather than hinge everything on her longevity records. The article is a biography about her life... not her current state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

I am proposing we add the following information to the lead to comply with WP:MOS:LEAD:

"During her lifetime she wed, gave birth to four children, adopted a fifth, and ran a store with her husband. Tanaka currently lives in a nursing home and has multiple grandchildren and great-grandchildren."

WP:MOSLEAD states:

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

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)

None of the intended addition meets the criteria stated above. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree as the information is being carried by worldwide media and establishes context. An important point here is that she lived a long life which is explained through the sources given. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

She got married = not significant. She had children = not significant. She adopted a child = unusual, but not significant in relation to her age. Ran a store with her husband = no significance in relation to her extreme age. Lives in a nursing home = not significant, it would be if she lived independently. Has multiple grandchildren and great-grandchildren = not significant, and entirely expected if she had multiple children. None of this is establishes context, explains why she is notable or is an important point in establishing her notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect we are writing a biography here. This is going to include events that occurred during her life which are notable as they are being covered in depth by numerous sources. You are correct though in saying that normally the life about someone is not significant which is true for people who have little to no sources about their lives (your average joe). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Padding out the lede with inappropriate trivia is NOT justified just because the whole biography has limited encyclopedic information. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That is just your opinion though per WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC "What policy (or guideline) does it violate or meet, and how?". I am pointing to this because its a broad argument to make as anyone can say "this is/isn't encyclopedic" based on their own personal point of view as a reason to include/delete content. The closest thing I can come up with is WP:NOTEVERYTHING which states "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." It then goes on to say "Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." Unless I am missing something the content in the reliable sources should be given equal weight. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey... I know you care about these articles as well and want the very best information in them. If the sources are deemed reliable though then we can't just ignore the information provided. Somebody did the research into her life to provide these details, and news outlets don't just do that for anyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic content

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)

@MattSucci: Please be WP:CIVIL here. That being said I will repeat my stance from above... per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC "What policy (or guideline) does it violate or meet, and how?". Anyone can say "this is/isn't encyclopedic" based on their own personal point of view as a reason to include/delete content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I just saw this. I think one good thing to go by would be if the facts being added somehow relate to her longevity or not. For example, graduating primary school does not relate to longevity. Random, not significant, facts should be left out too even if they relate to longevity if they are just random. It does seem like a lot of extra facts have been added to this article.

Some of the facts I think might not be necessary, include:

1) In the first paragraph under the Personal Life section there seems to be more information than necessary about Kane Tanaka's daughters. This part just seems a little wordy. It could be condensed a bit.

2) I don't think this page needs to go into Kane Tanaka's husband's military service lasting from 1937 to 1939.

3) In the second paragraph it talks about one of her sons captured towards the end of World War II, and then two sentences later it talks about her son held prisoner of War in Siberia. Is this the same son? If so, this seems a little redundant. If not, it seems like we are getting away from the topic of longevity a lot.

JasonPhelps (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Why do they have to relate to her longevity? If the information gets significant coverage through sources then it would pass WP:DEPTH. I think if we just included information about her life related to her longevity then it would amount to WP:RECENT. I combined the information about her son as to better the time flow of the article. Just a heads up from our own article: "A biography, or simply bio, is a detailed description of a person's life. It involves more than just the basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death; it portrays a person's experience of these life events." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Only 4 generations family

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'm sure some people live to be great-grandparents. Georgia guy (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Lol. I think what 91.82.135.145 is getting at is why no great-great grandchildren given her age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.126.101.68 (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Great-great grandchildren co-existing with their ancestor would make a 5-generations family. Georgia guy (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes....obviously. Your point? Seems given her age she SHOULD be at least a 5 generation matriarch yet she is only at 4....which is what 91.82.135.145 is inferring if I have it right...141.126.101.68 (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of people don't have great-great-grandchildren 118 years after they are born, whether they themselves are alive of not. Even if they have great-grandchildren. A newborn great-great-grandchild right now would imply roughly 30-year generation gaps, which is not exceptionally long. Besides, for all we know she does have great-great-grandchildren but just not mentioned in the source. Either way, this does not say anything meaningful about her age. Gap9551 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

A 30-year generation gap CONSISTENTLY-for a person that has three living adult children-is very unusual...especially since during the eras she and her children lived, people generally married and had progeny fairly young. I think you are correct; great-great grandchildren likely exist but are not mentioned. I don’t think it’s invalid to query her supposed lack of great-grandchildren and how it ties into her age-it’s an interesting anomaly. 141.126.101.68 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)141.126.101.68 (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

118 years old

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)

Is it possible that her 118th birthday is a longevity myth?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it's possible and if studies report on it then we can add the 118 mention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:27, 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.html141.126.101.68 (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"The whole point of her Wiki page is to celebrate her milestones and being the third person to reach 118" - no, it isn't.

We're not here as a soapbox or a congratulations to any one person. We're here to report what a reliable source states about a person, that's all. In fact, a BLP existing to "congratulate" anyone is quite literally the opposite of Wikipedia policy. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:43, 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)

I think another way to look at it is this:

• What about Kane Tanaka turning 118 is different from the other two women who turned 118?

If she lives long enough to carry the Olympic torch then that is something.... but we have to wait for this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 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)

Reminder:What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies

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)

Actually that discussion had no consensus on what should or shouldn't be trimmed nor is it binding to all longevity related biographies. If you want to propose something like that then I would take it to WT:BLP or WP:PUMP for community input. As I said above per WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC "What policy (or guideline) does it violate or meet, and how?". It's a broad argument to make as anyone can say "this is/isn't encyclopedic" based on their own personal point of view as a reason to include/delete content. That being said.... as I pointed out above there are trivial things we can all agree on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ll second the lack of universal application/consensus for all longevity bios by the cited discussion in 2014. Discussion yes-consensus no. I agree there needs to be a reliably sourced citation of relevant information (whatever that is ultimately deemed to be) but it’s still open as what actually is “encyclopedic” and what is trivia in longevity biographies. 75.140.150.166 (talk) 22:01, 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)

They will become less so the older she gets. If she becomes oldest verified what kind of life is good enough to win the longevity lottery would be an interesting curio no matter how mundane (within reason of course, a megabyte is too much). 118-year olds are like interesting world-class athletes in the sport of not dying. The genetic sports freaks get mundane details in their articles that no one would care about if they weren't top of their field too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree given that this is a BIOGRAPHY, which by definition is supposed to talk about events in her life. If the information gets significant coverage through sources then it would pass WP:DEPTH, and if we just included information about her life related to her longevity then it would amount to WP:RECENT. There is also WP:UNDUE to think about when it comes to giving sources due weight in what they say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

If this BLP weren't about one of the oldest women in the world, it would seem trivial, but pardon this for being unencyclopedic, but...it just doesn't seem trivial to include this stuff. I mean, her notability is her life. Literally, that's it. So I don't find these details - none of which are given particularly heavy weight in the article as it stands, I should add - to be in need of weeding out. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with you if these little details were from a fan site dedicated to longevity. Here we have multiple international sources though talking about these details. There is a difference between WP:CRUFT here as the sources used are mainstream and not just passing mentions. [1] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

If this is not encyclopedic content for this article then nothing. From the current article we can read such sentences that: "Her hobbies include calligraphy, and solving arithmetic problems." what nonsense things you can write about everybody. 82.131.141.218 (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

These kinds of things could be in a personal life section of any major biography on Wikipedia, not everybody is notable enough to have a personal life section of a biography on Wikipedia. Also longevity doesn't require any other notability allowing people who otherwise wouldn't be notable to get Wikipedia articles, some of the other space normally filled by notable things will have to be filled by things that wouldn't get a younger person an article.Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:22, 5 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)

This page has gotten out of control in terms of unnecessary details

As a Wikipedia User that started looking at these longevity pages some years ago, and learned from some statements that DerbyCountyInNZ made some years ago about what should and shouldn't be included on these longevity pages, I think things have gotten a little out of hand on this page. There have been many conversations on Talk Pages in the past about what should and should not be on Longevity Pages, such as Kane Tanaka's. So, people should know better by now. It seems like there is a lot of unnecessary information on the Kane Tanaka page at this point. I removed some things, but left a lot of things because I don't feel like it should be up to one user to overhaul an entire Wikipedia page.

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)

I broadly support @JasonPhelps's take on the article. At least 80% of the article is about other people or is standard longevity fanfluff used to pad out the article like her secret to old age. The fact remains, as the AFD originally concluded, all Kane Tanaka needs is a redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians or List of the verified oldest people, where the little notable info (age, life dates, nationality, Prefecture of birth/death) about her is recorded. Nothing more is warranted. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please keep this article as long as she's alive. If she dies you may focus on that. Georgia guy (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Newshunter12 and to a lesser degree with JasonPhelps. The 2018 AfD was abruptly closed after a consecutive string of "Keep" !votes, and then overturned. This article has been stable since that time, aside from some give and take on the merits of various details. Nothing has changed since that 2018 final decision that merits another AfD, in my view, and relitigating the contentious 2018 discussion(s) here is needless and arguably disruptive. The Wikipedia article on the world's oldest person exists, and in my view and the view of numerous others, continued arguments to redirect are without merit. The inclusion of sourced information by consensus, if needful, should be the focus of this Talkpage. Jusdafax (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Jusdafax The question becomes if there is enough longevity-oriented, non-trivial sources and information to constitute a Kane Tanaka page, or if information is just being trivially and unnecessarily added to the page in order to keep enough information on the page so it doesn't get deleted. If we were to take out all the unnecessarily, not longevity-oriented information from the page, it might condense down to a longer paragraph of information that would work well as a redirect to say the Japanese Centenarians page. However, we may have enough information, just barely, to constitute a page. It's just if people keep adding all kinds of trivial information to the page, that leads one to conclude that maybe there shouldn't be a page for Kane Tanaka, because it causes people to add all kinds of unnecessary fluff and information that is not longevity-oriented. And maybe people can't handle having a longevity page, with how the page has gotten so out of hand with unnecessary details. JasonPhelps (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Jesus, how can you be 3rd oldest ever and oldest now and 118 and not get an article? There's literally about a million biographies here. Random baseballers or footballers from teams no one has ever heard of and stuff. If those are notable enough to be articles then the world's oldest person should be and if their life is too boring for some people then so be it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, I'd definitely be in favor of deleting a lot of those biographies. The sport I know best, baseball, has its share. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I can make these arguments on just about any WP:BLP and remove stuff at will if i wanted to. Forget the sourcing.... forget the person who wrote about it... my personal view is that it is trivial nonsense. The problem with doing so goes against our policies and guidelines which are specific on the matter. We have to give sources due weight if they are reliable.... and we have to avoid recent bias in articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you wish to do the same to personal life details, not directly related to their notability, on all biographies of notable non-old persons? If not then what's the big deal, there'll only be one world's oldest human at any one time and only a few have been top 3 ever. You could've Googled a source for the noodle shop after deleting it, a livelihood for a person who's had very few is a important part of their life, as is converting once and how living in WW2 Japan affected their life. Okay maybe illnesses can be trimmed a little. But reaching 118 in spite of the typhoid of Typhoid Mary fame and later cancers at a youthful 45 and late 103 seems notable enough for a 118-year old, I'd remove being the third daughter if anything, 3rd or 4th is completely unremarkable and isn't a male- or female-heavy upbringing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The thing is that for Longevity articles there is a different consensus and guidelines for what we follow than for general biographies. For longevity articles, such as Kane Tanaka, information needs to relate back to longevity somehow. There is nothing about travelling to California or Colorado that relates to longevity. There is nothing about a noodle store that relates back to longevity. World War II maybe could be related to longevity if it's used to reference a timeframe during which Kane is living but this is a stretch. And there definitely doesn't need to be as much detail as their is about the war. JasonPhelps (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I would additionally also refer you back to the article of consensus DerbyCountyInNZ shared in the above discussion. It goes back to the same thing that has been discussed over and over again on Longevity Talk Pages for years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gertrude_Weaver#What_is_appropriately_encyclopedic_content_for_longevity_related_biographies

JasonPhelps (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I will read that tomorrow but I note that most of the stuff in the article is not as mundane and Facebook-like as the two examples at the top. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a repeated argumemnt to the one above by Derby... "Actually that discussion had no consensus on what should or shouldn't be trimmed nor is it binding to all longevity related biographies.". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that health is sufficiently related to longevity as medically there is no such thing as old age and it is always one aging-related health issue or another that causes death by old age and readers are interested in how healthy 118 year olds are. So maybe they'd even want to hear mentions of gallstone (fatal before modern medicine) and cataracts (incurable before anesthesia to those who don't want lens circumcision in most painful part of the body and blindness is a major disability). Longevity is all about the wear-and-tear being restricted to non-fatal malfunctions for longer than anyone else. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:27, 17 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)

• Another option would be to trim the unnecessary content here and use what's left to add a mini-bio at List of Japanese supercentenarians, with an accompanying redirect to her section. Seems a fair compromise for this dispute. What does the community think of this proposal? Newshunter12 (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would be strongly opposed to that based on evidence I provided in the section below regarding WP:LOWPROFILE. If you really want to push for this after her death then I suggest an RfC or AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I've forgotten how to request this - could we maybe have extended protection added to this page? People are getting a bit fighty over minor details

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)

I am fine with that as it appears some editors are hell bent on gutting this article based on things they don't like without any policy or guideline based merit. if you want to remove something sourced then fine... but please provide a valid reasoning for it that isn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Policy: From WP:BLP, specficially WP:NPF "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

? That's nice, but that's the basis of most arguments surrounding this article anyway? If the article has extended protection, these issues can be resolved in a productive manner, and we won't have to argue for as long or near as fruitlessly about what is and isn't relevant to include here. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Editors have repeatedly whined about the removal of the dross from this article without a policy. This is the policy. As for the replacement of this article with a redirect, I don't see the point and don't particularly care. When she dies there will likely be more reliable sources which can be used to cite encyclopedic material which is currently lacking. As for protection, I don't see that getting admin approval, this is a content dispute and semi-protection will achieve nothing, full protection isn't justified. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I just want to add that I understand the frustration of supercentenarian articles that use parrot sources. In many cases sources will do the same passing mention as they are owned by the same media company. I noticed something different here when I moved the content from Japanese Wikipedia in the form of diverse sources which gave interviews to the person in question. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Then there will be arguments about how well known is well known enough that may continue for years from now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

That also ties in with WP:LOWPROFILE. Kane has been interviewed by TV Tokyo [2], Kyushu Asahi Broadcasting [3], Rafu Shimpo [4], and is scheduled to carry the Olympic torch for the Japanese Olympics. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I second DerbyCountyinNZ's contribution above and believe this whole discussion comes down to the fact that there is content that simply doesn't belong in her article and has nothing whatsoever to do with her longevity. Even if a source states that she adopted her niece, had a noodle shop, traveled to the USA in the 70s and had surgery in her forties, this doesn't mean that it needs to be echoed here. As for her notability, well, she isn't particularly notable and I'm positive that if you polled a hundred people in a hundred countries, (except Japan) you could count the people who recognize her or her name on one hand. If she becomes a torchbearer at the upcoming Olympics, that will most likely change. However, I still believe she deserves an article, but one that is trimmed to facts that directly relate to her age. I would also not oppose Newshunter12's proposal for a mini bio and redirect if enough other editors agree. MattSucci (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Notability should include surgeries that prevented the 118 year old from dying, don't be so picky, health and aging are in the topic area. And what's wrong with basic biographical facts? They'd be in any professional biography condensed down to this length. Probably the reason the sources even mentioned the trip to America is because that's the only time she left Japan, I can't be sure without looking for a source first but seems common sense. And again, a single livelihood is a basic biographical detail, come on now. If she had 10 or 20 diverse similarly-sized sources of income okay that's probably too much but this is only one. Children are basic biographical details unless there's tons of them. An article on a guy with a harem doesn't need to go into this much detail on children. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC regarding the status of this article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to keep the page as a standalone article. Editors differ on exactly what content is WP:DUE for inclusion in an encyclopedia, which can be decided through normal editing process. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:48, 10 February 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)

Relevant policies/guidelines/arguments

• WP:DEPTH - "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable."
• WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC - "What shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia, what Wikipedia is not, has been defined by consensus. However, this includes many types of things, each having its own section within that or another policy. Therefore, the terms "unencyclopedic", and its flip-side "encyclopedic", are too general to be useful in deletion discussions. What we need to know are the specific reasons why the article should or should not be included. Otherwise, you just leave us guessing as to what you meant. Simply answer the question, What policy (or guideline) does it violate or meet, and how?"
• WP:LOWPROFILE - "A low-profile individual is a person, usually notable for only one event, who has not sought or desired the attention." (Nutshell)
• WP:NPF - "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see § Using the subject as a self-published source. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."
• WP:RECENTISM - "Some Wikipedia articles tend to focus on recent events. Wikipedia has been praised for the way it deals with current news breaks. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to be aware of balance and historical perspective." (Nutshell)
• WP:UNDUE - I will leave this one up for discussion as the policy is long to quote.

Arguments for a redirect/removal of content

• Some of the material is not encyclopedic and has nothing whatsoever to do with her longevity.
• This page has "standard longevity fanfluff used to pad out the article".
• Irrelevant trivia

Arguments against a redirect/removal of content

• Diversity and depth of sources used.
• Potential bias towards recent events.
• Is this woman a low profile figure?

Options (please place support or oppose)

Merge/redirect the page

Merge/redirect the page to List of Japanese supercentenarians or List of the verified oldest people

• Support The overwhelming majority of the article at present is about other people/events or extraneous info (ex. her trip to America in the 1970's) unrelated to her longevity (see WP:NPF, which is her only claim to notability. Her age, life dates, nationality, and Prefecture of birth/death are or will already be recorded at List of Japanese supercentenarians. A merge into the article and creating a mini-bio that her name redirects to is a reasonable compromise between the two camps that reiterates the above actually notable info, while preserving some of her other biographical information TBD, while the rest is culled. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep the page as is

The page stays status quo

• Oppose per my argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kane Tanaka. I'll add, this longevity article is a clear case of WP:NOPAGE that is padded with irrelevant fanfluff, in violation of WP:NPF, in an attempt to stave off being deleted again. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also applies as this isn't the place to remember her whole life story now or when she is gone. A longevity fan site is the place for that type of information (ex. her longevity secret, fate of each individual family member, etc). Newshunter12 (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This could easily be interpreted as a double vote, so I would recommend striking this through and keeping your support vote for a merge as the sole representative of your thoughts here. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet I view this RfC as the same as this longevity related RfC, where each proposal allowed an indvidual vote. What good would it do us to decide to not keep the status quo of the article, if we don't decide here what the other path is? Newshunter12 (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support for a number of reasons. Tanaka passes GNG -- this much is indisputable (and so goes the WP:DEPTH). WP:RECENTISM doesn't/shouldn't apply, because not only is Tanaka the oldest currently living person, she's also additionally the oldest verified Japanese person -- a nationality that already holds a longevity reputation, making it qualitatively different to the oldest person from a generic country (and I, frankly, think there is an argument for making articles for GNG-passing 'oldest person from X country'). WP:NPF problems are solved by cleanup, not deletion. I'll let other people dispute what's due and undue, because I do get the sense I'm out on the far end as to how much exclusionism is too much. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - she's one of the oldest living women on the planet, so it stands to reason that her life is the notable thing here. Not every BLP is made equal in its intentions, and the purpose of this BLP is to document someone's life, for the reasons that it is particularly long-lived. This article isn't a stub with a small sprinkling of references, it's verifiable, notable, and its details suit its purpose. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as per my arguments in sections 16, 17 and 18 above. I will, however, repeat myself: there is very little content which directly relates to her longevity, and regarding policy: (taken from DerbyCountyinNZ's contribution), WP:BLP, specficially WP:NPF "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." At the moment, this article reeks of a supercentenarian fansite article, where literally any mundane, trivial fact can and has been added. All that is missing here, to complete its ruin, is for someone to add a "longevity milestones" section. MattSucci (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - WP:NPF does not apply, as Kane Tanaka is not a low profile individual. Per WP:LPI, Kanaka has "given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication", has "voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities" (she wrote a book!) and does "engage in high-profile activity" (being the oldest person in the world). Per LPI, Tanaka is a high profile individual, so the cite of WP:NPF is invalid. Passing the GNG is not in dispute, so the question becomes whether or not the content itself is encyclopedic. The biography is well sourced and is well written, but I much of it is not, or, at least, not directly, related to the subject of the article and thus not WP ideal. Let's go section by section:

Intro is fine

First sentence of personal life is fine. So is the reference to being born prematurely. The breast milk reference is dumb. I'd keep the Meiji reference as an anchor to history. Info on her marriage and children, biological and adopted, is fine, but there's too much there about when her children died.

We can keep the noodle selling history, but her family's military history is irrelevant. Perhaps a simple reference to the fact her husband served, so as to lead into paragraph 2.

Religion is essential to a person's being - that should stay, perhaps as a simple sentence. The travelogue is entirely unnecessary. Referencing the death of her husband is appropriate.

Place of residence is relevant, as is state of health at 118. Hobbies I can take or leave, but five grandchildren and eight great grandchildren should probably stay.

With the exception of the KBC interview reference, the Health and Longevity section is good.

Some may say that some of the stuff left in is "standard longevity fanfluff." I would note that that's neither policy nor is it defined.

So, with the removal of certain content that I propose, the article should stay. It's encyclopedic, context would be lost with it merely being a list entry, and the reader would be harmed. Thus, keep as is. schetm (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons listed by MattSucci — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespearthrower (talk • contribs) 08:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Thespearthrower If you agree with @MattSucci's argument, shouldn't you cast an Oppose vote like he did? At present, you're voting against Matt's argument that the article is a disaster at present. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I have given my reasoning in discussions above this one. I concur that WP:NPF does not apply in Kane's case given the coverage through multiple interviews. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Meets WP:GNG. 172.58.107.214 (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose because I don't think we should keep the page as it is due to the fact that is has been greatly fluffed up with unnecessary details and trivial information that was simply placed there as filler by those that worry about the page's deletion. I think, however, that we could have a Kane Tanaka page like we have now, but get rid of all the unencyclopedic details. It would be shorter and more concise. She is, after all, currently the world's oldest person and in the top three verified people ever. However, the page is currently out of control with unnecessary details and fluff. JasonPhelps (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Can you define what is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC? We have already been through this numerous times and I still don't know from whose point of view we are basing this on (editor or WP:RS). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Meets WP:GNG. And, to put it simply- Wikipedia is used to enlighten on any given question that may pop into someone’s head. When “who is currently the worlds oldest person” pops in-that a page devoted to “Kane Tanaka” comes up seems to serve what Wikipedia’s ultimate purpose is. When she passes and the mantle moves on to whoever the next worlds current oldest person titleholder may be, Kane can become part of the more generic list of the worlds oldest people. I do concur with both MattSuicci and Knowlegekid87 in that there shouldn’t be a lot of “fanfluff” but that should be tempered by how do you actually separate such from WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC ? I’ll leave that to better minds than mine.....141.126.101.68 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SIGCOV — JFG ^talk 17:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per JFG. Suggest we close all this, as there is no consensus for merging or substantial deletions. Jusdafax (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

General discussion

This is an invalid RfC, there is no brief and neutral statement, nor even a timestamp that is required by WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pleases no

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)

Wikipedia doesn't have a set article length; and a merger doesn't automatically mean we'll cram one article into another. The benefits of a merger are being able to trim down redundant text and consolidate information due to the two articles' related or highly similar topics. If you've got a comment on the proposed merger, you're welcome to comment at the merger's Request for Comment (RfC); it should show up as a link either at the top of the article or at the top of this Talk page. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Olympic torch and interview

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)

• (CNN)
• (CNN2) (Record)

• Interview with TV Tokyo.

Source on photo?

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)

The photo originates from TV Tokyo. [5] I am unsure about the copyright status though as Kane is still alive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

See my post below about date of photo. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021

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)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Color Photo?

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2021

B 119.12.232.19 (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have an actual edit to request? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Her children

Does someone know one of her children name 179.113.223.249 (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

We don't usually add that information in unless the children's names are notable in context. My guess is that it's to respect her children's privacy, if sources aren't naming them then they don't want the attention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be against Wikipedia's notability policy to include their names. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

At what time zone/time does Kane Tanaka gain another day to her age?

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)

It SHOULD be JST. However the age templates for Wikipedia are tied to UTC time ….which an is incorrect benchmark as far as her actual birthday. Good luck in addressing that anomaly however. 141.126.101.68 (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The age should be adopted after the time zone in the person's residence. For example, some editor wrote mistakenly in June 2013 that Jiroemon Kimura died on June 11. However, he actually died on June 12, as his exact death time was 2.08am the night of June 12 Japanese Standard Time. At that time, the time in Europe (except the British Islands) was, however, 7.08pm the evening of June 11 (CEST). 213.65.211.63 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Saying she is 119 years old in the lead (more than once)

I feel that the first sentence pretty much explains it all when it comes to her age. As such the following notions seem trivial:

"At age 119 Kane is the third woman in history behind...."

"...being only the third verified person in history to have reached the age of 119."

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 number of days?

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)

It doesn't, because it uses Template:Ayd (talk · links · edit), which automatically updates. 🐔dat (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Image

Is it possible to change the image to colored, as shown here [6]? Severestorm28 00:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't like it here as the color looks too forced. Why do we need a color photograph? Lincoln has his in black and white (File:Abraham Lincoln O-77 matte collodion print.jpg). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

^ Agree. I actually touched up on this (as shown here). Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Has she really died?

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)

@YTKJ See here, here, here, here, and here. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 10:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

According to official sources, Kane Tanaka died (most likely of natural causes) at 6:11 a.m. the morning of 19 April, at age 119 years, 107 days; coincidencially on the 125th anniversary of Jiroemon Kimura's birth. However, living to a great age as 119 years is statistically very unlikely; according to a hypothesis from Calment-disputer Nikolay Zak, Tanaka may have got confused with her adoptive daughter, who is reported to have died young of cancer, but the question here is: How could the adoptive daughter die of cancer while the mother survived it?

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

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)

•  Done Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 16:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Date of Photo

• The photo caption in the article says 1925. So does the copy on Commons, which is from reddit.
• CNN says 1935: https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/asia/worlds-oldest-dies-scli-intl/index.html
• UPI says 1922: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/01/03/japan-oldest-person-kane-tanaka-birthday/1601641213781/
  • Hopefully one day the truth will be known as that's a 12-span for the same identical photo. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Seven Pandas Well,

  • The CNN photo is not nearly the same (check again), and
  • The article does not say that it is from 1925, and UPI does not claim it is from 1922
    • Both say it is from 1923
  • What is a 12 span?

  I hope these answers have provided useful information to you. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 10:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  • • @Fakescientist8000: From CNN "Kane Tanaka, aged 32 in 1935, is pictured in the center of the front row." So no they don't both say 1923. But yes, the clothes are different. So we're both right. I hope this has provided useful info to you. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

      @Seven Pandas Did you read what I said? I said that UPI said they both were from 1923, not CNN. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

      • @Fakescientist8000: Did you read what you wrote? You said "Both say it is from 1923", that'd be CNN and UPI. If that's not what you meant then you need to learn to write clearer. And stop insulting me before I report you for denigrating personal attacks. Drop the stick. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

        @Seven Pandas What I said there was not clear enough. Okay! You have to let me know the first time around. The context I was trying to say it in was that "[The article & UPI] say it is from 1923." I also ask how I "insulted you" and made "denigrating personal attacks". WP:ACCUSE is still in play here, and by violating that you are also violating WP:AGF by proxy. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Sister Andre

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)

 Done @User:YTKJ: I think there is no reason that, can shown the name of Kane Tanaka's predecessor as the world's oldest living person (Chiyo Miyako) but can not shown the name of her successor (Lucile Randon) in this article. In other articles, such as Emma Morano, also written successors' name. There is a lot sources, of course. And I don't know why you posted above comment here instead of doing it yourself.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Fixed--20:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Changing image of Tanaka

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)

Any reasoning behind it? Remember, WP:ILIKEIT (while we are not in a deletion discussion, we still are in a discussion) is still valid. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I am a little torn. One on hand, some other oldest people have the late years of them in their infobox as their pic (Jeanne Calment, Jiroemon Kimura, Sarah Knauss, etc.) but on the other hand, some other articles like Emma Morano and Lucile Randon have earlier pictures of them, so I know it's not the case for all articles. MichaelFansz (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

My concern is regarding the preview of such infoboxes. With all of the above examples, whether it be Calment, Randon, Morano, Kimura, or Knauss, they all fit inside the infobox, and thus the preview. Not with Tanaka, however: only the younger picture does. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:44, 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)

Actually, @Fakescientist8000, Kimura's image dimensions are about the same as Tanaka's so your point there is moot. Interstellarity (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I kinda forgot about Kimura's image for a second. The difference between his picture and Tanaka's (later life one) is that his still manages to fit in the preview, which was what my entire point was. However, if you can find an image of Tanaka that

A) is fair use/not a copyvio

B) is of her in her later life, andd

C) fits in the infobox

then we are golden. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fakescientist8000: Can you explain what you mean by "fits in the infobox"? I'm a little confused about what this means. Interstellarity (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Interstellarity Sorry for the confusion. What I was trying to say was in the little preview that you get when you scroll over her link and it shows that picture. It's all fixed now, though. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fakescientist8000: Thanks for clarifying. Interstellarity (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Probable birthtime of Kane Tanaka and your certain deathtime, including GMT

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"the kami" should be changed back to God

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)

Correct. 京都御所 (talk)