Talk:Misao Okawa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Unnecessary Milestones![edit]

Who agrees with my opinion, that the following milestones are trivial and unnecessary!
  • 2 January 2013: Mamie Rearden died. Misao Okawa, aged 114 years, 303 days, became the last surviving verified person born in 1898.
  • 11 February 2013: Misao Okawa, aged 114 years, 343 days, surpassed Mary Bidwell to become one of the 30 oldest women ever.
  • 1 March 2013: Misao Okawa, aged 114 years, 361 days, surpassed Eva Morris to become one of the 30 oldest people ever.
  • 18 March 2013: Misao Okawa, aged 115 years, 13 days, surpassed Chiyono Hasegawa to become the 4th oldest Japanese person ever.
  • 25 March 2013: Misao Okawa, aged 115 years, 20 days, surpassed Koto Okubo to become the 3rd oldest Japanese person ever. MattSucci (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
My opinion is: I'm okay with the first one (last surviving person from 1898), the next 2 I am neutral on, but would favor removal and replacement if she reached the top 20 or higher in any of those categories. I agree with removing the 4th oldest Japanese person ever because the one after is more notable at being the 3rd oldest Japanese person ever. My view on the incremental rising through the ranks is: I obviously favor 1st oldest, anything before 3rd I am against (unless it is their final position), and 3rd and 2nd, I am neutral on, which I suppose would default to a keep. Perhaps I would favor additional removal if the timeline idea were implemented to show less important milestones. RoadView (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Totally agree that all these so-called "milestones" are nothing bu fanfluff and should not be included in an encyclopedic article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the first one but agree that the others should be removed. — JJJ (say hello) 22:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Being the last born in 1898 is (just) notable (and it is mentioned in the text which is sufficient), the date on which she became the last isn't. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay I agree with that. — JJJ (say hello) 02:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Me too! - Ujongbakuto (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Milestones removed! Now doesn't that look neater! MattSucci (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Face-smile.svgJJJ (say hello) 19:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Now all we need to do is apply a similar standard to Besse Cooper, Jeralean Talley, Bernice Madigan, Arturo Licata, James McCoubrey and James Sisnett. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. — JJJ (say hello) 04:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree also, but how would we go about arranging that? How easy would that be? MattSucci (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
We could conduct a full consensus of each milestone with Green tickY and Red XN like on Jiroemon Kimura's? But to keep a general standard, we should list somewhere (after a consensus) which milestones are acceptable and which are not. When reverting an edit, we could simply cite "removing milestone per WP:Longevity milestones" Or something of that nature. — JJJ (say hello) 13:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
That idea sounds good to me! Having consistency across the field would be the most sensible way to proceed, and potentially having WP:Longevity milestones would clear up any misunderstandings that often occur due to so many irrelevant milestones! I would like to contribute, but I feel somebody more capable should take the reins for this! MattSucci (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been wondering how best to go about this for some time. I'm not sure a Longevity Milestones project is the best way to go, or even if it meets the criteria for a project. I suppose it's worth a try, the worst that can happen is some admin comes up with a better suggestion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are so insistent on removing milestones. I agree that a few of the original milestones weren't nessecary, and that they should be removed, but you should at least keep the one about her becoming the last person from 1898, and the one that she has made it in to the Top 30, but I think you should keep the 3rd oldest from Japan too. Becoming the last from one year is quite the milestone, and to me (and a lot of other people), it made Misao much more significant. And making it into the Top 30 out of 7 billion is REALLY BIG. If she makes it to the Top 25, replace it, if she makes it to the Top 20, replace it, etc., but you should at least keep the Top 30 one for now. And being the 3rd oldest from Japan is huge too. Being in a Top 3 of anything is really big, especially when it is the 3rd oldest person from your country ever. If you can give me a valid argument against these milestones being included, then I am fine with them being deleted. Roadview makes a good argument, and actually backs up his claims with a bit of evidence. But if you just call them "fanfluff", then we are going to have a problem.

Thenoobtester (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The argument against "longevity milestones" is:
  1. Having a section for longevity milestones violates WP:TRIVIA: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." (the bolded emphasis is in the original text)
  2. Having these "milestones" unsourced is a violation of WP:V: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

Beyond that, anyone's subjective opinion on what is or is not a "notable" milestone is entirely irrelevant. So to include a milestone, it must be something that a) can be easily incorporated into the prose while maintaining the flow and b) must be attributable to a reliable source. Pointing to a list of supercentenarians and saying "Look! If we look at these numbers, we can see that Person X was Y" is not good enough per WP:OR: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." (emphasis mine). Also, please keep in mind that, per WP:BLP, unsourced materials from biographies of living people may be removed at any time. Canadian Paul 23:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I have no problem with milestones. As long as they are referenced to an RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem I am having is the users like Derby and MattSucci would delete them even if they were a referenced source. They have done this on multiple occasions and all they say is that it is "per consensus to the talk page".[1][2][3] Yet all they have on the talk page is three people saying that they should remove the milestones because they are all "fanfluff", and don't even put up a reasonable argument. Consensus isn't 3 people. Consensus is a whole community. I hardly think that milestones are "miscellaneous" either. On top of this, derbycountryNZ claims that it says this material should be removed according to WP:TRIVIA, yet on that page, it even says that POORLY PRESENTED information is better than no information. I don't think these milestones were poorly presented beforehand, either. On top of this, milestones don't even fall in to the category of trivia. Not all list sections are trivia sections (see Wikipedia:Embedded list). It is an organized and selective list, to show milestones that cetain supercentenarians have passed. Give me a valid argument against keeping milestones sections. This information should be presented in a list format, not just being barely mentioned in the bio. thenoobtester (Talk | User) 13:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
"users like Derby and MattSucci would delete them even if they were a referenced source". Wrong. Stating that someone is "the last person born in 18xx" and using a citation which does not specifically state that the person is the last born in that year is not good enough. Any other citation is WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. This applies to all the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th, 20th, 30th etc, etc oldest entries as well. Citing a list every time someone moves up a place is pure trivia. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. Your links don't point to a specific edit, so we don't know to which edits you are referring.
  2. Weren't the referenced milestones already part of the biography or included in the biography after the deletion?
  3. Most of the milestones didn't include citations, violating many policies such as WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. — JJJ (say hello) 20:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thenoobtester, for one thing, you keep complaining that no one has "even put up a reasonable argument", yet you seem to have ignored the one I laid out (almost) immediately above you. As for consensus, consensus is between the editors that are actively working on improving the page, not some arbitrary number of people. Having said that, if you really feel that there needs to be an outside opinion, there are many options for procuring one at Wikipedia:Consensus. Canadian Paul 21:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I am generally supportive of these types of milestones being included, if we have the proper rs support. Perhaps we can all agree on that notion.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

cite tags[edit]

2 months old cite tags have been removed along with the info which wasnt ref'd, somebody wants to keep edit warring. Can we resolve the dispute here, please. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with removing that unreferenced information. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What Is Her Real Name?[edit]

Is her first name spelled Misao or Misawo? And, if it turns out to be the latter, shouldn't we change it? SuperHero2111 (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Both. She usually goes by "Misao", but sometimes they call her "Misawo". Deaths in 2013 (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Oldest "child"[edit]

Could Mrs. Okawa have the oldest living "children"? I have long wondered who the oldest "child" was to have a living parent. Mrs. Okawa's 94-year-old son might very well be the oldest "child" ever. His sister died but there is no indication where she fits into the birth order. It is possible that she may have been older than her brother and could have lived to 95 or older. Is there a "child" older than 94 to still have a living parent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.228.66 (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Child" also means "son or daughter", not necessarily an infant. 187.65.219.235 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Duh? That was not a question. The question is who is the oldest known person to have a living parent. Can it be Okawa's 94 year old son? --84.94.165.130 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This is idle speculation which comes under "general discussion of the article's subject" (as stated at the top of this page) and is not appropriate for this talk page. This sort of thing belongs on a fan club messageboard such as the 110 Club. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

OR trivia[edit]

I've removed the material that has been added without a proper reference for the same reasons as those cited in Talk:Misao Okawa#Longevity milestones above. While perfectly true it is trivia unless a proper reference is found, otherwise it violates WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:TRIVIA. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You're removed too much. In this, it can not be edited freely. That she became the 2nd oldest in Japan beyond the age of Kimura, is very important. should be written. Please forgive this edit.--Disputed (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I've explained above why this material cannot be added unless there is a Reliable Source which you have failed to provide. Your continued addition of this not only fails the guidelines above but also fails WP:CYCLE and WP:CONSENSUS. If this continues the next step is to take this to WP:ANI. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Kimura was Born April 19, 1897, who died at 116 years and 54 days old in 2013. and Okawa born March 5, 1898. that she surpassed the age of Kimura it can be obtained by calculation. Please stop that you want to delete the text in the idea that "there is no source".--Disputed (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
You have no Reliable Source which states that Okawa has passed Kimura therefore the only person that thinks it is important is you which is insufficient for wikipedia. If you cannot find a suitable source I will remove the material, if you revert I will take it to WP:ANI and if you persist will take stronger measures. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this she surpassed the age of Kimura very important, and this is the correct information. I do not think that it is necessary the source of this. This is because it is only necessary to calculate the age normally. Does that make sense?--Disputed (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit error[edit]

In this edit, the editor made a huge error: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misao_Okawa&diff=next&oldid=607853395 Misao Okawa is not dead; therefore this error should be fixed. (Deaths in 2013) (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies[edit]

There is currently a discussion about what constitutes encyclopedia content on longevity related biographies at Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies please comment. I am One of Many (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oldest "Asian" person.[edit]

As above (repeatedly!) unless there is a citation which explicitly states that Okawa is the oldest person in Asia (if the intention of "Asian" is in a geographic sense) such a statement violates WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA etc. If the intention of "Asian" is racial then it also violates WP:Ethnicity. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello,

This is really very simple.

The Gerontology Research Group (GRG) are the leading organisation when it comes to the research and verification of supercentenarians. When we, on Wikipedia, use the term "verified", we mean that the person's age has been verified by the GRG.

According to the GRG, the top six oldest people ever, with their country of death, are:

1. Jeanne Calment (France) 2. Sarah Knauss (USA) 3. Lucy Hannah (USA) 4. Marie-Louise Meilleur (Canada) 5. Maria Capovilla (Ecuador) 6. Misao Okawa (Japan)

Now, it's quite obvious that France, USA, Canada and Ecuador are NOT in Asia. Japan, on the other hand, IS. Therefore, Misao Okawa is the oldest ever person from Asia, according the GRG.

Simple.

To say that this important information cannot be included because there is no "citation" (when clearly there is), is absurd. Where is the citation to say that she is the oldest person ever from Japan?

Cheers,

Ollie231213 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. Wikipedeia is not the GRG.
  2. Nothing in the GRG list mentions Asia.
  3. Using Okawa's nationality from the GRG conclude that she is from Asia violates WP:SYNTH (even if it is true).
  4. Mentioning that Okawa is the oldest person from Asia without a proper citation that actually mentions that this is the case violates OR.
  5. If there is any citation used in her article that does not mention she is from Japan I would be surprised (I'm not going to bother checking ALL of them). None of them (AFAIK) mention anything about Asia.
  6. The fact that there is no mention in any source that Okawa is the oldest person in Asia is sufficient to conclude that this information is trivia and including it would violate WP:TRIVIA.
The various wiki guidelines that this entry information violates (while there is no proper citation) is all covered by the discussions above on this talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Do you agree that Japan is in Asia? And do you agree that France, USA, Canada, and Ecuador are not?

If an article says that she is from Japan then she is obviously from Asia as well. You really don't need a citation to tell you that.

"Using Okawa's nationality from the GRG conclude that she is from Asia violates WP:SYNTH (even if it is true)."

Are you serious?

Japan is in Asia, AND EVERYONE KNOWS THAT!

To not include this information on such a ridiculous technicality is detrimental to the article. If you can't see that, then I give up hope.

I understand that these guidelines exist for a reason. But using these guidelines to argue that we need citations to tell us that Japan is in Asia is just absurd.

Sometimes, breaking the rules are NOT a bad thing.

Ollie231213 (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Derby,

I presume you know of WP:WIARM, and more specifically, WP:UCS?

Some relevant quotes from these guidelines:


"Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit"

"Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated."

"Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule."


One of the goals of longevity-related articles is to inform readers about longevity records. Not including the fact that Misao Okawa is the oldest ever verified person from Asia (according to the GRG)is damaging to the article in that sense.

I have already explained my reasoning very clearly. I see no reason why this information should not be included.

If we all know tit's true, then it certainly violates common sense not to include it.

Cheers,

Ollie231213 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This has been explained clearly numerous times and there is an established consensus above. You appear to either not understand how wiki works are are deliberately ignoring wiki guidelines. If this continues I'll take this to WP:ANI. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning clearly. Tell me exactly where I'm going wrong, please.

And where exactly is this "consensus"?

Ollie231213 (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The first thread on this page. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That is referring to lists of longevity milestones, which is a different matter.

And you still have not explained what is wrong with the argument I have laid out above. Which points do you refute?

Ollie231213 (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The same thing applies to the material you are attempting to add (I have replaced the relevant passage in this quote from above:

Beyond that, anyone's subjective opinion on what is or is not a "notable" milestone is entirely irrelevant. So to include a milestone, it must be something that a) can be easily incorporated into the prose while maintaining the flow and b) must be attributable to a reliable source. Pointing to a list of supercentenarians and saying "Look! If we look at these numbers, we can see that Person X was Y the list and this person is Japanese therefore they are also Asian" is not good enough per WP:OR: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." (emphasis mine). Also, please keep in mind that, per WP:BLP, unsourced materials from biographies of living people may be removed at any time.

If you think that I am wrong in making this connection feel free to contact Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) directly, as an Administrator he has better knowledge of these matters than I do. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And this is where I point to WP:UCS.

You may be correct in saying that "Pointing to a list of supercentenarians and saying "Look! If we look at these numbers, we can see that Person X was Y the list and this person is Japanese therefore they are also Asian" is not good enough per WP:OR:"

HOWEVER, you and me both know that Japan is in Asia, so in this case, I believe that common sense should override this guideline.

As I said, I think that following each guideline word for word does more harm than good, and instead, common sense needs to be applied where appropriate.

Now, what is wrong with what I've just written?

I apologise for getting overly frustrated but you must see the reason behind it.

Ollie231213 (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Although I usually agree with Derby, in this case I disagree. I think this is a good case for Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, or maybe even WP:IAR, as we don't need to cite that Japan is in Asia and the other countries where older people are from are not. The source does list the nationalities of the other nations, so that requirement is covered. I would argue that it is a notable fact, because although human-defined geographical boundaries are technically arbitrary (and sometimes even in dispute - is Russia "European" or "Asian"?) the division of continents has played a major role in, at least, human political and economic history. It is a bit trivial, but living longer than any of the billions upon billions of people that have ever lived in such a large region, coupled with the substantial coverage of her as an individual, seems to be a matter of encyclopedic merit. Of course consensus could be against this fact being notable, but this is just my opinion. I would agree with Derby that it would be much better to have a source that directly states this, but I think in consideration of everything that we can let this one fly. I wouldn't be sad if it were removed either though. The comparison between "these numbers, we can see that Person X was Y" and "this person is Japanese therefore they are also Asian" does not quite work, because looking at a set of numbers and drawing connections between them is arbitrary, while looking at Japan and saying that it is in Asia is not. 13:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, CanadianPaul.

I'm going to add that information back to the article, if that's okay. At least until there is consensus to remove it.

Cheers,

Ollie231213 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Is she still alive?[edit]

When she dies, who can you (Wikipedia editors) know that? Is this possible that she's allready dead, but the Wikipedia keeo saying that she still lives 46.121.229.243 (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

She celebrated her 117th Birthday today [1] --Dps04 (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
So celebrated one day before her true birthday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.178.209 (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
We know it the same way we know she's the oldest verified living person. Reliable sources. That does mean the article can sometimes be slightly behind reality. There have been several cases of people on this list passing away some time before it's caught by this page's editors. But in general when someone of this age reaches a milestone or dies there is some mention of it in a news source. And if there isn't, the GRG usually tracks it down. Given the contentious nature of this subject, longevity researchers do a pretty solid job of keeping current on the folks they've determined to be the oldest verified people. And the WP editors here do a good job of following those sources and referencing them as they are published. aremisasling (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Weight![edit]

Is the inclusion of her weight really necessary?MattSucci (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No. And as it violates Template: Infobox person "If person was notable for their weight, or if weight is relevant"" I'll remove it. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

1800s v 19th century[edit]

Can someone tell me what the difference is between: "also the last living Japanese person to have been born in the 1800s" and "also the last living Japanese person to have been born in the 19th century". Thanks. Quis separabit? 12:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: The 19th century spans from January 1, 1801 – December 31, 1900, and the 1800s span from January 1, 1800 – December 31, 1899. Odd, I know. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015[edit]

182.69.181.23 (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC) please put the cause of death as congestive heart failure

Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Photograph of this female shown on her death in the news[edit]

There is currently a photograph of the lady whom has just died on Microsoft News website see: http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/offbeat/worlds-oldest-woman-passes-away/ss-BBic9jl The article author could use this to provide a photograph of this Japanese female, as currently there are no images. There are photographs of the current oldest female in history on French female Jean Calment's article as of April 2015, whom died aged 122, so photographs could be shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.54.203 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

1800s, again[edit]

I've removed the statement that Okawa was the "last Japanese person born in the 1800s" due to the potential confusion/inaccuracy its inclusion might cause. The English translation of the citation used states this "fact", clearly intending the 1800s to mean 1800-1899. As per 1800s, 1800s may mean 1800-1899 OR 1800-1809 (which is wikified as 1800s (decade). The 1800s page also notes that the 1800s (1800-1899) is almost synonymous with the 19th century (bold emphasis mine). In this almost is not good enough, the citation cannot be used to claim that Okawa was "the last Japanese person born in the 19th century" as this is not correct, Nabi Tajima was born on 4 August 1900 making her the last such person. Until such time an appropriate citation is found which states that Okawa was the last born in the 1800s (and defining that as 1800-1899) or the last born before 1900, the sentence should be omitted. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)