Talk:Jiroemon Kimura

And who is the second oldest man in Japan?

Has anybody an idea?

Tanekichi Oonishi-15 February 1900 65.0.27.76 (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Year link

Could the editor who insisted on this link (Ryoung) please explain what, exactly, in the article 1897 satisfies WP's requirements for relevance and utility for the reader? Or is it just a magic blue carpet to encourage browsing? I note that there are already several (long piped) links in the vicinity that we do not want to dilute. Tony (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the year link does not signficantly aid readers' understanding of the topic. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You two are always on cohoots with each other, and have been for more than a year. Further, the edits to my talk page amounted to examples of BULLYING as Wiki editors are free to apply the rules of their choice to their own page.

If you don't think the link is meaningful for you...DON'T CLICK ON IT!

Ryoung122 14:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"You two are always on cohoots with each other ..." – aside from the bad-faith CABAL-like accusations, that has no bearing on the arguement

"Further, the edits to my talk page amounted to examples of BULLYING as Wiki editors are free to apply the rules of their choice to their own page" I'm not sure what in our comments, which were quite civil, constituted bullying.

"If you don't think the link is meaningful for you...DON'T CLICK ON IT! " Sorry, that's not a rationale for keeping/adding links to an article. Do you have an argument based on the guidelines at WP:LINKING, WP:MOS, and WP:MOSNUM? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"..DON'T CLICK ON IT". Unfortunately, this is not an argument that carries much weight on WP. We are a consensus-driven project, and accordingly we have derived guidelines to benefit our readers. Like it or not, in this case consensus has indicated that such items should not be linked. Example reasons include: over-linking devalues higher quality links, and that WP is not a collection of trivia. Are you aware that the minor number of people who find this page and want to find out what else happened in 1897 can simply enter "1897" in the search box and click "Go"? It's not a stretch to imagine that they could figure that out; is it? Your argument also has the drawback of encouraging vastly more links than we currently have because "people don't need to click on them do they?".  HWV258.  23:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

i think you two are sock puppets. 198.175.205.251 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your evidence being... Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You two are always on cohoots with each other, and have been for more than a year. Further, the edits to my talk page amounted to examples of BULLYING as Wiki editors are free to apply the rules of their choice to their own page. as Robert Young has pointed out. 74.249.138.19 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon, I think you need to read up on what a sock-puppet is. I can't help but find it suspicious that you randomly came to this talk page and accused Tony and me of being sockpuppets even though you have never participated in any discussions with any of us three (RYoung122 being the third) ... care to explain? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"...the edits to my talk page...". Hmmm.  HWV258.  22:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

An unfounded allegation by an anonymous editor—how cowardly. Whoever you are, how about addressing the issues in question (or doing something constructive at WP—elsewhere)?  HWV258.  22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And yet I would welcome a sockpuppet investigation; I have nothing to hide. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, back on topic, the link has been removed again. Seeing that the RfC supports this delinking, and no consensus or justification has emerged for re-linking the year, I would strongly encourage Ryoung122 not to revert. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I had no qualms in removing the link as there was overwhelming consensus to not link dates simply because they correspond to years of birth or death. To that there is no debate. If someone wishes to start a new discussion to refine the policy of date linking, then off to Wikipedia:Linking we all go.  HWV258.  22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

hes notable for living long, whats wrong with a year being a link, why do you care, some may be interested in it, and Robert Young is a lot smarter than you two combined. 74.249.138.19 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon, please refrain from the personal attacks comments. Do you know RYoung122 personally? Comments like that indicate that you have contributed to Wikipedia before and are editing anonymously in violation of WP:ILLEGIT. I assume you know such behavior could lead to a block. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"...a lot smarter than you two combined". Perhaps (but not yet demonstrated); however is he "a lot smarter" than the 208 editors who overwhelmingly indicated (based on the text in the option they supported) that dates of birth and death should not be linked?  HWV258.  23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Those who have been on Wikipedia for a while should know that one rule never applies to everything. This guideline is very recent and so exceptions to the rule have not been officially established. The consensus was to remove unnecessary links on dates - not all date links. It's fairly common on news reports for supercentenarians to list the events that took place in their year of birth. Links are what build Wikipedia and these links should be kept as they are both relevant and provide context to the article. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus here is clear that we should exclude the links. Cunard (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, consensus decided that dates should not be linked unless there's a specific reason to do so. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, consensus was reached based on the following text:

Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is

germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an

important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. For instance,

Timeline of World War II (1942) may be linked to from another article about WWII, and so too may 1787

in science when writing about a particular development on the metric system in that year. However, the

years of birth and death of architect Philip C. Johnson should not be linked, because little, if any,

of the contents of 1906 and 2005 are germane to either Johnson or to architecture.

That is so clear that it's hard to believe that we are still discussing this.  HWV258.  00:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news site, and I do not think these links provide context to the article. SiameseTurtle, can you give examples of how a year link significantly improves readers' understanding of this article? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. As the last living man born in 1897, readers might want to see more information about the time he was born in. Reporting an age is just one thing. To go one further is to actually explain the eras that are linked together by this man's longevity. And as I said before, the guideline is very recent and has not yet allowed for exceptions. Wikipedia doesn't grow without links, and I don't understand the notion that we should remove a useful link simply because a new rule says otherwise. There are exceptions to every rule and according to WP:IAR, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". This rule is preventing us improving the article by adding context. Furthermore, I never said that Wikipedia was a new site - I was merely stating that multiple reliable sources also like to add this information to their articles - presumably because they feel that it improves them. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"...readers might want to see more information about the time he was born in"—thanks for focusing on another problem in linking to specific years. Have you looked at the 1897 page? Here are the links found on that page that relate to the time around the birth of Mr Kimura:

April 5 – The Ordinance of April 5, equalizing German and Czech in Bohemia,

          is signed in Austria-Hungary (see Count Kasimir Felix Badeni).
April 24 – The first ever Challenge Cup final is played at Headingley.
April 27 – Grant's Tomb is dedicated in New York.
May 1 – The Tennessee Centennial Exposition opens in Nashville, for 6 months,

        illuminated by many electric lights.
May 10 – The Snaefell Mining Disaster occurs in the Isle of Man.
May 16 – The Teatro Massimo is built in Palermo, the largest opera theatre in

         Italy, the 3rd largest in Europe.
May 18 – Dracula, a novel by Irish author Bram Stoker, is published.
May 19 – Oscar Wilde is released from prison.

How does the above "contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter" of Jiroemon Kimura? I could be more sympathetic to a link to 1890s or 1900s as I guess it could be argued that those pages define an era when Mr Kimura grew up (and therefore might give background to influences on his life), but the link to 1897 is pure trivia. (Please note: I didn't cherry-pick the items in the above list; and in fact it is interesting to note that neither "Japan" or "Asia" are mentioned in the list of items on the 1897 page.)  HWV258.  01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. Someone famous only for age is a symbol of the past. At the highest ages, the difference between one year and ten years is huge. It's like saying an NBA game should be won by 10 points, not one.

Further, the article about the person isn't really about the person except as an individual example as a connection to the past. It does not matter if the 1897 article has topics directly related to Mr. Kimura or not (although one must criticize such an article for having no mention of Japan or Asia, if that's true). What matters is that such as link allows a reader to find out about "the world in 1897." Is that too hard to understand? A reader could click on the link and realize that this man was born the same year as Faulkner (an author noted for saying "the past is never really past"). How delicious is that irony? Yet, for some Wiki meter maids, acting as virtual policemen while reducing the functionality, usefulness, and even quality of Wikipedia is more important than actually considering whether they might not be ENTIRELY right.

In China, it is said that "Mao was 70 percent right, 30 percent wrong". Unlike the Western either/or binary, the Eastern concept of yin-yang allows for different thought vectors. You should consider using them.Ryoung122 14:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I, too, agree with excluding the links as they do not, in any way, help the reader. Cunard (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. In addition, it's like Sock Central around here.Tony (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt that anyone here is a sockpuppet. Spurious accusations from either side does not help the discussion. And since most users here are established editors, even a "meatpuppet" accusation would be faulty.

It would not be incorrect to note, however, that the editors on one side (such as Tony1, DaBomb87, OhConfucius, Cunard, and HWV258) often contribute to each other's discussion page (and indeed, there is clear evidence of "notes" left on each other's pages about this in the last two days) and share an area of interest (the Wikipedia de-linking project) while those on the other share a separate area of interest. Surely it's not coincidence.

In short, for better or worse, often a CABAL of fanatical editors tend to decide for the vast majority (who often have little/no interest in the subject). If we were to be purely objective here and only editors that found out about this edit discussion by chance only (rather than being notified by "allied colleagues") It is highly likely that not a single comment would have appeared here.Ryoung122 14:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)