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 find it disturbing that you use the term "consensus-driven". Wikipedia is about consensus-BUILDING (peaceful resolution of conflict through mediatorial efforts), not aggressive, chess-like attempts to project one's own views without even discussing the issue first.

Also, links are not "higher quality" and "lower quality" (all links are the same). Some links have more relevance/use than others. I agree that too many links can make it more difficult to focus on the most-useful links--but clearly, in an article about "Japan's oldest man" who happens to also be the "last verified man from the year 1897", the year of birth is, in fact, one of those links which have more relevance.Ryoung122 14:25, 28 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)

Comment. Did all 208 editors vote for only one policy, or did simply a majority or even just a plurality of the 208 favor a certain version of it? It is not clear what you mean. But even if there were 208 editors in favor of the policy AS WRITTEN, it doesn't really apply in this case because it was intended as a general guideline, while the rationale for year linking for oldest persons is different. I note that history tends to record "last living veterans," "oldest Confederate widows," "last Titanic survivors" etc. Should we say that the article on the last Titanic survivor shouldn't have a link to the year of the sinking (1912)? Answer me that.Ryoung122 14:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Easy—no it shouldn't. There should be a link to the Titanic article which in turn contains all the relevant information. (Interesting to note that the Titanic article doesn't link 1912.) As far as I can tell, the "while the rationale for year linking for oldest persons is different" concept is your own. Why do you feel you have the right to over-ride the consensus achieved by so many other editors? As I've mentioned before, feel free to try to have the policy altered by taking up the debate at Wikipedia:Linking. By the way, the RfC process is not a "vote" (that's an important point that I feel you are missing in this discussion).  HWV258.  22:23, 28 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)

Sorry, but I thought it was really clear the way I explained it. It's not a question of being "famous" for a year (or a decade). It's about what relevance the page at the other end of the link provides to the current article. I demonstrated above that the information at the other end of the 1897 link is irrelevant to the information contained in the article on Mr Kimura. This is a point that most of the 208 editors who chose Option 1 in the RfC also realised. The information at 1897 is nothing but a collection of trivia as far as Mr Kimura is concerned. That really is the simple concept that drove the results of the RfC debate.

The point I made in regards to the decade articles (1890s and 1900s) is that at least those articles provide some context for the era in which Mr Kimura was born and grew up. The "NBA game" (horribly extended) analogy shows a lack of understanding of this point.

"...find out about 'the world in 1897.' Is that too hard to understand?"—no, but there is nothing to understand. Could you please explain to all of us why a link to 1897 for a person aged 113 is more relevant than a link to 1897 in an article about a person who was born in 1897 and died in 1967 (in terms of finding out about the world way back then)? You've just provided the argument as to why every birth-year should be linked (something the community has overwhelmingly rejected).

"...allows for different thought vectors. You should consider using them". The different "thought vectors" were all clearly considered and debated in-and-around the RfC community process. I'm sorry that you don't like the outcome, but nevertheless, there was a consensus-driven outcome. Based on that consensus, please stop linking the years of birth in WP articles. If you wish to debate a refinement to the current consensus policy, please take up the issue at Wikipedia:Linking. Surely it shouldn't be a difficult exercise for you to make your point there? Don't you believe the other editors there would be smart enough to understand your argument? Would you like me to start the debate there for you?

(As an aside, could you please use the indenting mechanism on each of your paragraphs? It's simply confusing to suddenly outdent during a single post. I've taken the liberty of updating your above post.)

 HWV258.  22:09, 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)

And yet, that does not affect the appropriateness of the year link. I might add though, that I at least have rarely, if ever, corresponded with Cunard. If you want more objective editors to weigh in, feel free to ask for a 3rd opinion. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes—the old "I did the right thing because people didn't find out about it by chance" approach to editing on WP.

It is worth noting (again) that this issue was thoroughly debated by many more than a small "CABAL" of editors. The above argument is purely a mechanism to try and deflect the discussion away from the relevant point: that the community has reached consensus that years of birth and death should not be linked.

 HWV258.  22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

i was wrong, your not SOCK puppets, MEAT puppets is more likely. 65.0.20.40 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance of you helping with the issues being discussed? If not, run away and hide you horrid anonymous nobody.  HWV258.  01:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA 198.175.205.251 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. You're going to have to expect some reaction on a talk page if you (anonymously and cowardly) accuse people of being puppets. Especially since you have no evidence whatsoever.  HWV258.  19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

puppetry is not the issue here, its about how ridiculous you and others are being to make a big deal about a simple year link, if you dont wanna click on it then dont, its as simple as that. 198.175.205.251 (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To you it's as simple as that (that much is obvious to all now). To hundreds of other editors who have been involved in the date-linking debate over the previous years, there are many other issues. Perhaps if you do a bit of reading you'll also come to appreciate the other aspects of the debate? Good luck with that.  HWV258.  20:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the debate above and at the debate on linking years, and from what I can tell, the consensus reached on Option 1 of linking dates allows for a link made to this person's year of birth. And that is because in this case, the relevance of the year in question is underlined by the stated fact that this person is the last male alive born that year. To apply this logic to the example used in the debate on the year-link issue, the birth year of Phillip Johnson is neither relevant or germane to architecture and is mere trivia in terms of Johnson's accomplishments here. This is definitely not the case with Kimura - the year is relevant not only to the individual in question, who is largely noted for the year he was born, it is relevant to the general subject of gerontology as last-living is an aspect of the subject closely tracked as a last living link to the era in question. Which also addresses why an Asian man should be linked to a year with little or any note of Asian events - it is a link to the era, not to any particular events of that era, which makes the year-link relevant.

I demonstrated above that the information at the other end of the 1897 link is irrelevant to the information contained in the article on Mr Kimura. This is a point that most of the 208 editors who chose Option 1 in the RfC also realised. The information at 1897 is nothing but a collection of trivia as far as Mr Kimura is concerned. That really is the simple concept that drove the results of the RfC debate.

Actually, I think you are incorrect on these points, HVW. While the year article can definitely be improved to provide better context than a mere list of notable events, this is a separate issue. Even if the year page listed events of relevance linked to Mr Kimura, that's not the reason for linking to that year - it is because he is partly notable for being the last male cohort of the year itself. And that very point is explicitly made in the article here.

And, speaking personally, when I have read articles on a person being the last living link to, say, World War I, or to the American Civil War, it is both relevant and interesting to be able to click on that link to refresh my memory on what was notable about that event. The same logic applies to the last human link to a particular era. I have definitely looked at years noted that a person was the last living link to. It's interesting to note that Oscar Wilde was serving jail time after his famous trial as the current oldest person was born. That the first Olympic Games were about to be held. That Wilfrid Laurier became prime minister of Canada. Those are concrete links, a very human links, to something familiar and is my view entirely relevant to include to impart a sense of the span of time of an individual's life. So, the argument for Kimura could be made to other "last links" to particular years. Though I'd not go beyond last male/female cohort, for example, noting last American cohort and linking that person to a year. Canada Jack (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Canada Jack (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry—all a big stretch; and there are too many loopholes that will eventually dilute the clear community-based consensus on not linking dates of birth and death years. "...who is largely noted for the year he was born..."—of course not; he is noted for the age he achieved when he died. Anyhow if you really feel this strongly (and as this is not the place to debate it), why not pitch in at Wikipedia_talk:Linking#Request_for_Comment:_Year-linking_exceptions_for_persons_noted_as_.22links.22_to_the_past?  HWV258.  20:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the precise "consensus" you identify as being "clear," as this is one of the rare situations where the year of birth - and what was going on in the world that particular year - is of interest and germane to the article, in contrast to the samples mentioned (Phillip Johnson, architecture). And... I missed the stuff below... d'oh! So I will add my two cents soon on the appropriate page. Canada Jack (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We have very different definitions of "germane".  HWV258.  22:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed we do if you suggest that to link to the year in this sentence, "...the last known living man from the year 1897," is not "germane." This is one of the few cases where it is the year itself, rather than the events of the year, which is non-trivially associated with an individual. Canada Jack (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to move discussion

This debate should be taken to the policy page regarding linking to years and possible exceptions. I find many of the editing and comments to be quite disturbing because they misconstrue their position as the "only possible way." Consider:

1. For many years, date linking was in fact the consensus

2. Tony1 was actively involved in the efforts to overturn the then-consensus in favor of date linking

3. Many of the editors supporting his position in this case posted on his talk page in the last two days, suggesting possible CANVASSING.

4. Some of the editors (including Tony1, supposedly a person with a Ph.D. who knows better) edited my personal page in a disparaging way (even though personal pages do not fall under the "guidelines" of Wikipedia articles themselves)

5. Even if "consensus" was generally achieved through coup d'etat measures, that does not establish that no exceptions can be made

6. Therefore, the debate should be as to whether an exception to the general guideline (not policy)

7. Editors pushing the "overlink" POV continue to miscontrue what is a "guideline" as "policy" (which it is not)

8. Usually, when a new issue arises, it is best to maintain the status quo unless/until debate determines that a change to the status quo should be made. Those pushing the "overlink" POV have failed to recognize that, in fact, status quo arugments favor maintaining links in articles for "oldest persons."

9. Arguments you make fail to take into account the input of outside sources. For example, we see books like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Jeanne-Calment-Goghs-Extraordinary-Years/dp/0786217774

which not only make a big deal out of the year of birth (read the book if you don't believe me) but even the title has the word "years" in it, and the subtitle says "from van Gogh's time to ours." Does this not establish that there is a CONSENSUS notion in outside sources that Jeanne Calment is a symbol, a "LINK" from the 1870s to the 1990s? Or more specifically, from 1875 to 1997. Even the year 1997 is mentioned in the very short, 3-line edit summary. This suggests that for "oldest persons" links through time are of the utmost importance to the article. Is Jeanne Calment famous for cooking? For sports? For running a business? Or for her link from 1875 to 1997?Ryoung122 23:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To the point "this debate should be taken to the policy page regarding linking to years and possible exceptions"—I agree wholeheartedly. It is somewhat surprising therefore to see that the rest of the above points prolong the debate on this page! For that reason they are not worthy of a response here (which is not to say that I don't have a couple of thoughts on them).  HWV258.  23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Irrelevant; the consensus has changed, as has been said several times now.
2. OK, so what?
3. Nope, no canvassing; many editors have Tony's page watchlisted (230 as of this comment) so it would not be surprising if they saw the thread on his talk page and felt the urge to comment here.
4. Irrelevant, although I agree those actions were unnecessary.
5. A 500-person poll does not amount to a coup d'etat
6. Agree to the first statement, although the "only a guideline" phrase doesn't fly if there's no reason to ignore the guideline.
7. Evidence that said editors are misconstruing the consensus, please.
8. No such status quo; the consensus at WP and the Manual of Style changed months ago and there seems to be no widespread consensus for such an exception for oldest people articles
9. "Is Jeanne Calment famous for cooking? For sports? For running a business? Or for her link from 1875 to 1997?" None of the above. It's here longevity that makes her notable. The years are just details. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In summary though, I agree that we should go to the WT:LINKING page to discuss this. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

on january 21 another longevity record will be made

editors keep a watch on this artical's subject in 7 days this man becomes the 10th verified oldest man ever when he over takes the next man on the list which is Johnson parks an american man who lived to 113 years, 275 days. placing Jiroemon kimura in the top 10 of oldest men that ever lived. 69.208.10.149 (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

on march 21 another longevity record will be made

Jiroemon Kimura will over take the next man on the list of oldest men ever lived his name was Moses Hardy and lived to be 113 years 335 days. if this man can live this long he will become the 8th oldest man to ever live. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)