Talk:Nabi Tajima

December 2017

I do not understand why she is known for "Last surviving person born in the 19th century" when she was born in 1900?

Because 1900 is part of the 19th century. Gap9551 (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Since there was no year 0, the 1st century started with 1CE, the 2nd with 101CE, the 3rd with 201CE, etc., so the 20th century didn't start until 1901. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone actually confirm if the above is correct without childish fish insults? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.111.200.10 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The article 19th century states "The 19th century was a century that began on January 1, 1801 and ended on December 31, 1900." Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused about this - this page claims that she is the last surviving person born in the 19th century, but according to the List of oldest living people page there is another woman born in the same year who is still alive. PaintTrash (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Tajima's age has been validated and there is a reliable source stating she is the last. Ida Troupe's age has not been validated, and until she is (which is unlikely) Tajima's article is correct. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and see my more detailed response to the same issue in similar thread below: no part of 1900 can be of the 19th century for the simple fact that you cant have 1 year out of each falsely defined century, 1/100 of each set, have a different number in the hundreds place. lack of "year 0" is immaterial as that is but one case out of millions of known centurie i.e. a man made error/inconsistency. There are many other ways to demonstrate it cannot functionaly nor logically "work" if you try to somehow include 1 year of the next "1*00-99" set of years as arbitrarily and thoughtlessly being part of the former hundred. Sinsearach (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The article 1800s states that the 1800s can refer to "the century from 1800 to 1899, almost synonymous with the 19th century (1801–1900)". When you say, "you cant have 1 year out of each falsely defined century, 1/100 of each set, have a different number in the hundreds place", you are probably thinking of the 1800s, not the 19th century. Any way we measure time is falsely defined, just like the way national borders are falsely defined by humans. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The demarcation between the 19th and 20th centuries is entirely arbitrary. The "year" didn't start on 1 as the calendar as we know it was created hundreds of years later and arbitrarily. If the argument is to be made that the year started with AD 1, we can still say that the first century had 100 years but that the first century started at BC 1 to agree with the BC/AD scheme. This goes the same with millenia. If we base everything on Jesus's birth, the second millenium would have begun around 1995 or 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.218.142.170 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The decision to place AD1 when it was is arbitrary, and we could have just as easily chosen a different year. There is also no reason why we couldn't have a year 0. However, any decision would have been arbitrary. The 1st century of the common era would include the first 100 years of the common era, which would be AD1-100, since 1 BC was not part of the common era. Society could decide to number the years using astronomical year numbering, but unless that happens, Wikipedia will have to use the calendar the way it currently is: with the common era and first century beginning with AD1. Wikipedia does not do original research. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, there is an explanation at Wikipedia manual of style page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Centuries_and_millennia. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It is unsettling that Wikipedia is convinced to be incorrect. The ISO standard starts at year 0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B044:1EB8:2CDD:ADC6:AC2D:3A2B (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2018

I just noticed that coincidentally Nabi was born on the EXACT same day as Queen Elizabeth II's mother, known here in the UK as the 'Queen Mother'. This could be mentioned somewhere as it is a historical date and a huge coincidence. Especially since the Queen Mother also reached her centenary! You don't have to, it just surprised me as I only just noticed it as a UK citizen. Thank you! :) Elliott M (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing this up, interesting. However, it is not uncommon for two people with Wikipedia articles to be born on the same day, at least after 1900 or so. See for example August 4#Births: two people were born on 4 Aug 1901, three on 4 Aug 1904, and these lists are incomplete. We normally don't add such connections to articles, unless reliable sources point it out. Gap9551 (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This trivia was previously added to this article, and as with most longevity fanfluff it was uncited and therefore removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Add Source to Cite Fact Given on Nabi Tajima Page

I was noticing on the Nabi Tajima page at the end of the first paragraph, last sentence of the paragraph, at the top it states she is the world's fifth oldest person ever. However, there's no source citing that. Would this be a good source to add so that has a citation? http://bnonews.com/news/index.php/news/id7037 . I think that fact of her being the world's fifth oldest person needs to have a citation with it. Also, instead of saying 'world's fifth oldest person ever', it might be better to say 'world's fifth oldest verified person ever', given that we go off of what is verified by GRG/Guinness. You never know there might be someone unverified that we are unaware of, so it's always good to use the word 'verified' to be more accurate. JasonPhelps (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The lede does not need referencing if the statement is referenced in the body of the article, as it is in this case: citation #10 states explicitly that she is "the fifth-oldest person in history whose age has been validated" and has a citation which supports this. The use of the word "validated" is better than "verified" as verified could mean anything which satisfies WP:V, a distinction which continues to cause confusion in longevity-related articles. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Nabi Tajima first person to reach her age since December 1999, oldest validated person to live in 21st century

Hey so @Georgia guy and one other editor removed the statement I added to this article stating that Nabi Tajima is the first person to reach her age since December 1999, and the world's oldest person validated to live in the 21st century. First, I would ask Georgia Guy what was meant by the statement "This is dependent on our calendar". I'm not quite sure what was being referred to here? Secondly, since this is the second time an editor has removed this, I wanted to bring it up on the talk page instead of continuing to revert it in the article, to get consensus. Source #10 that I added to this page specifically states that this is the first time someone has been alive that has reached or surpassed Nabi Tajima's age since December 1999--so this is sited by a reliable source. So my question is, should we include the following in the Nabi Tajima article: This is the first time someone has reached Nabi Tajima's age since December 1999, making her the world's oldest person to live in the 21st century.

Thanks for input anyone wants to give on this. JasonPhelps (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion both statements are trivial longevity fanfluff, and while the first is cited the second is not making it WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. As the inclusion of the first statement is disputed, although it is appropriately cited, it would require consensus for it to be be omitted. I see no justification for the inclusion of the latter (which is in any case will become outdated eventually) until/unless there is an appropriate citation and again subject to consensus if its inclusion continues to be disputed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed the statement purely for the erroneous wording (and the first to reach her age since December 1999). The last time someone "reached" Tajima's "age" wasn't in December 99, it was in approximately mid 1998. If the statment was "The last time someone was tajima's age or older was in Dec' of 99." I honestly couldn't care less, although as Derby says, it's just another piece of unnecessary fanfluff. Also, take a look at the "Known for" section in the infobox, looks suspiciously like a milestone section in disguise. Information and dates are important, but surely only relevant ones that add to the encyclopeadic value of the article should be retained. MattSucci (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point about the "Known for" section. I've removed the oldest in the 21st century for the reasons above, and also the "oldest living in Japan" as this not not a notability which would justify an article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Oldest living in Japan is redundant and can go since she's the oldest living person. Agree with removing "oldest to live in 21st century". That's gotta be the fluffiest piece of longevity trivia I've ever heard and it's unlikely to ever be cited. I'm 50/50 on the oldest since 1999 because it is cited but agree it's also fluffy and probably doesn't belong here. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I had put the 21st century into the "Known for" section when adding it under the bibliography thinking that the fact the article said she was the oldest since December 1999 implied she was the oldest in the 21st century, but that makes sense to remove it based on the reasons above, since the article doesn't really specifically say word for word that she is the oldest validated to be living in the 21st century, just that she is the first to reach her age since December 1999. JasonPhelps (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

As for the part with Nabi Tajima being the oldest since December 1999, I would be up for seeing what other people have to say, since CommanderLinx is 5050 on it, and it is cited, but should be thought about whether this is too fluffy or not. It seems somewhat significant given no one has attained that age in 18+ years, but then it could become less significant later if more people reach that age later. If a lot of people think it should be left out, I will leave it out. If a lot of people would like it included, I'm happy to include it. Thoughts? JasonPhelps (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

While I'm actually surprised that there is a citation for it, I will still put my !vote in for leaving it out. I think that it falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as we wouldn't have posted it if she was the first since, say, 2015. But where do we draw the line? Seems arbitrary as to when this "fact" would be important or encyclopedic. We're not obligated to report everything that the sources do if consensus agrees to leave it out. Canadian Paul 09:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Dependent on our calendar"?? It isn't difficult to see what this means. Suppose we had kept the ancient Roman calendar where years were numbered since Rome was founded. Our year 1999 would be 2752, and 2018 would be 2771. Thus, both years would be in the same century (the 28th to be specific.) Georgia guy (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Labeling it as 'fanfluff' is a disservice to the significance of the fact. Consider--Until recently, the four oldest verified people in history had solidified their places in the 1990s. Two were born in 1875 and two in 1880. No one born in nearly the next two decades reached that level. One woman born in 1898 became the first to reach 117 since then, but still died 203 days short of the block. Then, in fairly quick succession, the last three women born in the 19th century became the first serious challengers to those claims. Emma Morano died 93 days short, then Violet Brown died 41 days short, and finally Nabi Tajima died 30 days over former fourth-place Marie-Louise Meilleur and third place Lucy Hannah. Now Chiyo Miyako is only ten days shy of becoming yet another 117-year-old. The claim that she is the oldest person yet verified to have lived in the twentieth century may not be a permanent title, but it's the first time someone has done so for a whole generation. This is more than mere 'fanfluff,' which feels like a pretty derogatory term. It's a significant statistical milestone for humanity. In a way, it's similar to what returning to the moon might be after nearly a half-century away. Also, consider that currently, 72% of the people on the 'List of the verified oldest people' have lived in the 21st century, and yet, until recently, the oldest four people were all among those that had died in the 20th century.Ryan Reeder (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Utter fanfluff. Belongs in a longevity fansite not an encyclopedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2018

83.110.14.27 (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Last survivor of the 19th century

The article says she is the last known surviving person born in the 19th century but List of oldest living people says Ida Troupe was born 25 December 1900. Which is correct? Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have the same question. Ayil676 (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, “The 19th century didn't finish till December 31st 1900”. The 1900s seem to be confused with the 19th century, which was mostly in the 1800s. Ayil676 (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, someone later answered on another section of this talk page. The answer is that Ida Troupe's date of birth is not verified. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Born the same day as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

A coincidence if you're a Brit!Bashereyre (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Utter trivia which has been removed from this article multiple times. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

18th or 19th century?

I think the birth date puts her as being born in the 18th century. Correct me if I'm wrong. Antonio Bisignano (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong. The 18th century was 1701-1800. --Marbe166 (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

...as already stated CLEARLY, at the top of this talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok I checked the facts and I concede. The 19th century didn't finish till December 31st 1900. You are correct. Antonio Bisignano (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that definition is fallacious; evidenced most simply and easily by the fact it attempts to claim that last year of any **99-**00, either AD or BC, is the same century throughout those years even though the DIGIT IN THE HUNDREDS PLACE IS DIFFERENT for 1/100 of said years in the set. Yes -1 --> 1 AD was a manmade fluke/error/aberration, but that is but ONE example out of MILLIONS (age of universe, every century/millenia/etc transition) that, by its infinitesimal minority, does not and cannot change it for the rest. Sinsearach (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

19 centuries = 1,900 years not 1,899 years. Logically the 19th century ends when the 1,900th year ends, i.e., at 11:59 PM December 31, 1900. XinaNicole (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, the year was 1900, so she was BORN IN THE 19TH CENTURY!

Plus she has died, why are we talking about this? Cats go wild (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Because there re a lot of ignorant people on Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources of death seem dodgy

Having a look at the few sources that are currently out for her, they look kind of dodgy, so maybe she’s not dead. JoeyRuss (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

When I got the source for this article and clicked on translate, it said that she died in August, not April. Georgia guy (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Now look here:

https://news.google.com/news/story/dViEh5n-1YmhqmM7JwUPr64H85ZVM?hl=it&ned=it&gl=IT

(These are the only 3 sources revealed by a Google News search that reveal her death.) I tried to see what these sources say, and they are Italian, and (unlike the one linked to in this article) I can't translate them to English. Georgia guy (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

ABC news can be considered reliable: World's oldest person dies in Japan at age of 117. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That page wasn't revealed by Google News searches until recently. But now it has. Georgia guy (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

19th century?

the 19th century is Jan 1 1st 1800 to december 31 1899. 1900 is the 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinsearach (talk • contribs) 07:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Try reading the other threads on this page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

They're the person in the other threads making the same false claim about what the 19th Century is. Chai T. Rex (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding an image?

I would like to know if the possibility of adding an image of Tajima is in the air.

There are quite a few of the oldest people in history that do not have pictures of them on their pages, and I was wondering if we would be able to add one for Nabi Tajima.

DaBestMonEva (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC) DaBestMonEva

Cause of death?

Does anyone know what was Nabi Tajima's cause of death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1103:45:4C9B:30BF:F6E6:5ABA (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Nabi Tajima (Q17686907)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nabi Tajima (Q17686907). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)