Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Notes on Julian/Gregorian calendar usage

I've always thought the notes on the possible inflation of the ages of several of the supercentenarians on this page smacked of original research. But I decided to do a bit of research on the point that the stated date for Shigechiyo Izumi's birth may be off by 12 days owing to the fact that Japan adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1873, when Izumi was 7. The presumption from whomever wrote the note was that the Japanese were using the Julian calendar up to that point. But in fact, Japan was using a lunar calendar when the modernizing Meiji government enacted the change. In other words, though it is true that it was not stated whether the conversion between calendars was made, we can specifically rule out that the possible 12-day inflation referred to was not made as Japan had never used the Julian calendar. Accordingly, I am omitting the note as it describes a scenario that in the case of Japan did not exist.

As for the Romanian record-holder Anitica Butariu, while the point about the conversion there may be valid, it still sounds to me to be original research to presume that what must have been an every-day conversion didn't occur to the authorities in question to make. But there, at least, the question hasn't been answered. And since it seems the consensus from before was to leave the note in place, I suppose it should stand. Canada Jack (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As has been discussed before about leap years, the people in the table are organised by age in years and days, regardless of how long the years were. Again, this highlights the problems with using ages in years and days, instead of just days. As for her real birthdate, the original information would have to be looked at. The UK adopted the calendar in 1752. Years before then started in March, not January. So for example 6 January 1750 was just over 257 years ago. In today's calendar it would be 1751. However, obviously if someone had been born on that date, that's the date that would be on their birth certificate. If someone can confirm that Anitica Butariu's birth was actually on 17 June 1882 on the old calendar then it shouldn't be original research. If the GRG have "modified" her birth to fit the new calendar by pushing it 13 days later then it has already been accounted for. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The day-count issue is not relevant in Izumi's case, as I have pointed out, as the presumption was that Japan went from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar in 1873. They in fact went from a lunisolar calendar to the Gregorian calendar. So the assumed "error" could not have been made. As for the particulars of the Gregorian calendar, it is rather well known as to the issues involved, ensuring that the nominal first day of spring - March 21 - closely matched the real first day of spring. That was fixed 425 years ago. (Except for the Orthodox still on the Julian calendar whose March 21 misses Easter by something like 13 days.) In terms of what we do here, the issue should be do we stick to our sources or not? If the sources go by year/day count, then that is what we should go by. As for day count, I have pointed out before that one of the sources in fact does have a day count, which differs from the one here. [1] (The day counts open in Firefox, but doesn't seem to open in Explorer)

Sure, I'd agree that if we had Butariu's birth certificate and it said "June 17" when that was the date reckoned under the Julian calendar, then we'd be on firm ground to add the footnote. In that case, it'd be a brief, in time, footnote, as GRG or whomever would make the adjustment. And after they did, then so would we. But we don't have that. The above source has her day count, incidentally, as 42160.75 days. They are the ones who do the research, and we should presume that any adjustment factors were taken into account unless there is some compelling reason to believe otherwise. When it comes to reckoning dates, the issue of calendar adjustment is quite basic. I find it somewhat unlikely that after all these years, it never occurred to the people who are presumably familiar with differing dating conventions (such as in Japan) would make such a simple mistake. But, as I also said, it seems the consensus was to keep that Butariu note. Canada Jack (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In checking the day counts on the GRG site, there seems to be something odd going on with the fractional days. After the first 10 on the list, day counts are .75 for the next dozen or so, .5 for dozens after that, .25 for dozens after that. Anyone have any idea what is going on here? Canada Jack (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure how the date was converted to 29 June 1865. You seem to assume it was converted to a Gregorian calendar? Please note the two footnotes have differed for some time - the former has the words "may be" and the latter has "appears". I made the relevant change after correspondence with GRG. Is there proof that it was converted to the Gregorian calendar? I have amended the note to be more precise. Any comments? Alan Davidson (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is proof. See here: http://www.searchforancestors.com/utility/gregorian.html SiameseTurtle (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some basic confusion here on your parts, Alan, and Siamese. The issue is not whether country a) or b) is on the Gregorian calendar, the issue is the presumption that Japan was using the Julian calendar before they converted to the Gregorian calendar. The note says It is unknown whether the date was converted to a Greogorian Calendar date or a pre Gregorian Calendar date. If the latter, then one of his 120 years was in fact 12 days shorter and his date of birth would be July 11, 1865 in Gregorian countries.

You have no basis, Alan - none - to a) assume a difference of 12 days or b) a "correct" date of July 11. Indeed, the entire premise here seems is demonstrably false - that Japan, for some bizarre reason - was using the Julian calendar up to that point. In fact, Japan was using a lunisolar calendar. Which is an entirely different sort of calendar than the solar calendars which the Julian/Gregorian calendars are. If you have some rationale as to how Japan or GRG miscalculated that date, then that would - possibly - warrant a note. But what is that rationale? I can see the argument for the Romanian record-holder. For Izumi, you have not identified a rational as to how there could be a specific error of 12 days. Canada Jack (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

First, before making a change I suggest you should wait for the discussion to run its course. Second, the note as amended to the stage before your amendment made no assumption that the Julian calendar had been used. On the contrary that it is your assumption. The note - before you changed it last stated correctly - It is unknown whether the date was converted to a Greogorian Calendar date or a pre Gregorian Calendar date; you seem to be implying in that statement "by Japan" - but I read it as "by the source"; and that is unknown. I again ask (for clarification before changes) is there proof as to how the source arrived at the date - was it Gregorian based or pre Gregorian based? Your assumption is incorrect and I suggest you revert your change. I will not engage in an edit war - but your reading was mistaken. Revert and run a discussion first. Alan Davidson (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The change is warranted as it has no basis in anything verifiable. Where does "12 days" and "July 11" come from? Why not "30 days" or "July 20"? As for this statement: It is unknown whether the date was converted to a Greogorian Calendar date or a pre Gregorian Calendar date What, prey tell, does that mean? What is a "pre-Gregorian" calendar date? This makes no sense and betrays an ignorance it would seem on calendrics. There was no such thing as a "June 29" in the calendar Japan was using before as they were on a lunisolar calendar. This is not a "pre-Gregorian" calendar, it is a different calendar!

So, the removal of the note is entirely warranted as "12 days" and "July 11" seem to be arbitrary, as there is no basis stated for supposing those could be accurate conversion dates or figures, and the phrase makes no sense in terms of calendrics.

I again ask (for clarification before changes) is there proof as to how the source arrived at the date - was it Gregorian based or pre Gregorian based? Your assumption is incorrect and I suggest you revert your change.

The question, Alan, makes no sense. It presumes that there was some western-style date (like "July 11") that was adjusted from something like a Julian calendar to a Gregorian calendar. In fact, Japan converted their dates in 1873 from a lunisolar calendar to the Gregorian calendar. While we may not know exactly how the conversion was made, we can eliminate the Julian calendar as Japan was not using a solar calendar until 1873! Canada Jack (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, what stands for the Romanian may have a basis in the argument here. What I am saying is that your point makes little sense in terms of the Japanese situation. Especially in terms of a conversion from a lunisolar calendar to a solar calendar. Here is a link to give you a taste of what was involved. [2] Canada Jack (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I can gather, June 29, 1865 in the Gregorian calendar would have been Taian, UruSatsuki 7, 1865 in the old Japanese calendar. While the conversion from a lunar to a solar calendar is complex, it is presumably quite routine for Japanese who do it all the time, especially those dealing with pre-1873 dates. Since Mr. Izumi was world's oldest person for something like a decade it strains credulity that his lunisolar birthdate would not have been converted correctly when presumably millions of Japanese would have caught the error if one were made. And since Japan has been using the Gregorian system for a century by the time his date of birth became an issue, it further strains credulity to suppose that (to them) such a basic error could have been made, especially by those people tracking elderly Japanese who would have all been born under the old dating system until the time that Izumi became world's elder. Also, it is hard to understand how one date could be rendered "wrong" since dates were rendered in a uniquely Japanese fashion. So there is little opportunity for someone to "forget" to convert a date as it might be for the Romanian woman, and that is the presumption that is seemingly being made here when we talk of "July 11."

But, if we are to start flagging potential errors on the basis that, well, errors might be made, then should we not treat as suspect any dates from countries employing lunar calendars? What about Anne Primout, born in Algeria? She was born when under French rule, but who here has seen the evidence, and what if her birth was recorded using the muslim lunar calendar? Can we trust the conversion?

And on the subject of possible errors, can we be certain that dates have been read correctly? As one who has some experience reading old handwritten documents, I know how easy it is to make an error in reading certain handwritten numerals. Or different cultural renderings - such as the European "1" which to the Anglo eye looks something like a "7." While it would be hard to get the year wrong, getting the day of the month wrong in fact is quite simple. Shall we attach similar caveats to point out all these potential errors?

All this boils down to is: Can we trust our sources, and should we be second-guessing them? I say it is not up to us to second-guess them unless there is good reason to do so. And the reasons supplied are not good. So, I don't agree that the Romanian source should be second-guessed, but I haven't touched that one as the consensus seems to be to "stay." But the Japanese one presumes a high degree of incompetence and supplies a possible "correct" date with absolutelty no source, other than, I suspect, the suspicion of someone here at wikipedia. Canada Jack (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Full marks for you. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You have done some good research – but you seem to be assuming that someone needs to justify why your change should not be made. My view is that a change needs to be discussed and justified. Saying things like you do not know what the statement meant is not helpful. Ask for it to be explained. Well, you did ask “What prey tell does that mean?” If you do not know - how can you justify the change? However, to answer your question, to me the note means that when the source converted the date to June 29 it is not known whether it was converted to a Gregorian Calender date or not – as Japan was not using a Gregorian Calendar at that time. If you do know, say so. I think that once you appreciate what the note meant, it impacts the rest of your statements. Also, it is not about errors; it would be correct to convert the date to prevailing 29th June. Again – I suggest the change should not be made until you understand why – saying, I have made a change and I don’t not understand the note, is not the way to go. Please let me know if I can help further. But I think the note should stay – it does make sense. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan, the reason the phrase made no sense is because there is no such thing as a "pre-Gregorian" calendar. What's that supposed to mean to you? Any calendar which came before 1582? I can justify the change because the very fact you chose to use that phrase betrays your confusion on the subject of calendrics. Further, your confusion is further betrayed by the following: However, to answer your question, to me the note means that when the source converted the date to June 29 it is not known whether it was converted to a Gregorian Calender date or not – as Japan was not using a Gregorian Calendar at that time. This is where I don't understand what you are talking about. The date which was arrived at was June 29 which is, clearly, a Gregorian calendar date! What else could it possibly be? I am at a loss to understand what else Japan would have done - they certaionly would not have rendered the date by the Julian date as they converted to the Gregorian calendar. Further, "June 29" is a date which is a characteristic rendering in the Gregorian calender; It is an uncharacteristic rendering from Japan's old system. Where is the opportunity here for confusion? The Japanese would not, in 1865, have called the date Izumi was born on "June 29", nor would they have called it any other date which we who use the Gregorian might use. Do you feel that there was some intercalary month not accounted for here? The conversion from a lunar calendar is tricky, but what error do you feel potentially was made here? And why, prey tell, would they go from the lunisolar calendar date, to some intermediate rendering, then to the Gregorian calendar? Which is what you seem to be suggesting. It's true that we don't know, specifically, that, say, Japan, for whatever reason calculated dates from the old system into the Julian system. But why, for God's sake, would they do that? And what makes you suspect that they might have done so? Using your logic, we could question whether they were going by the old Roman calendar in use before the Julian one, and ask loudly whether anyone knows specifically that that mistaken conversion was possibly made! But the better question is what leads to you suppose they might have done that in the first place?

Again – I suggest the change should not be made until you understand why – saying, I have made a change and I don’t not understand the note, is not the way to go. Please let me know if I can help further. But I think the note should stay – it does make sense.

Your inability to address my points reveals you don't understand the problem, Alan. Simply put, when Japan (or someone at Guinness - whatever) made the conversion with the date - and it matters not one whit whether that was done in 1866, 1873 or 1973 - there is no stated reason from you why an error did happen or how an error could have occurred. There is just a flat statement that an error possibly could have been made as we don't know who made the conversion and how they did it. Not only that, you have supplied a possible "correction" for the error you have yet to describe, an adjustment of 12 days and a possible "correct" birthdate for Izumi of July 11th. And where does this number of days and this particular date come from, Alan?

And, though I've not said this before, I will now, if this July 11 date can't be sourced, if you can't at least supply a rationale to include it in the footnote (there is for the Romanian - a possible confusion of dates between dates rendered by the Julian calendar and the Gregorian calendar, both of which have identical dates for different points in time), then it constitutes original research and has to go. As far as I can tell the only place where there is a question about whether Izumi's date of birth may be wrong (let along wrong by a specific number of days) comes from you and from no one else. (I don't of course include the controversy about whether he was in fact born years later, that's another issue.) So, far from tut-tutting about my temerity in removing the footnote, if you want that footnote back, here is what you must supply: A source for the belief the date may be rendered wrong; A source for the correction factor you have inserted. Canada Jack (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion and I hope we continue in this civil manner. But you are failing to understand a few points. You state in several places that you do not understand the note - you say “I don’t know what you are talking about… What else could it possibly be? … I am at a loss to understand what else … why prey tell would they …” and more. I repeat if you don’t understand please have it discussed here thoroughly and then make the change. It may be that the consensus is to change – but not by your approach. I say you must justify the change beforehand – but you say it is justified this way - “I can justify the change because the very fact you chose to use that phrase betrays your confusion on the subject of calendrics.” Surly not. A change should not be based, by you, on my comments on this discussion page; made after your change to the page. Your reason should predate the change. But you continue to make false assumptions. Your latest contribution for some reason refers to Japan making the conversion of this birth date. I have previously stated - “you seem to be implying in that statement ‘by Japan’ - but I read it as ‘by the source’; and that is unknown.” Please let me explain. When Japan commenced using the Gregorian Calendar in 1873, the dates from that time were now in conformity with other countries which adopted the Gregorian Calendar. The issue is and has remained, how the date of 29 June 1865 was arrived at – not be Japan, but by the source. If it was converted to a Gregorian Calendar date, fine; but why convert it a Gregorian date when that was not what Japan was using at that time. Was it converted to a date that was “pre-Gregorian” (that is before the Gregorian Calendar was adopted by Japan) – which has some reasoning; and so answers some of your questions. You make some good points; but I repeat the change should be justified by discussion; you should not make a change, explain that you don’t not understand the other side and then ask for others to justify why the note had been in place for months. I suggest you revert it, ask for discussion until the end of July. But – I am happy to leave it at that. But if you indicate that you still do not understand, the other side, I will be glad to continue our discussion. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And I repeat, Alan, that I don't understand because a) there is no explanation given and b) because it seems quite clear you are identifying a problem that in Japan's case would not occur. In other words, Alan, you are making an issue out of complete non-issue. How was a conversion made? As I indicated, there are tables and calculations readily available to make the conversion. What you have utterly failed to explain is what leads you to believe there was some error made here, and, further, how could an error have been made? Your confusion on the subject is again on display when you say this: If it was converted to a Gregorian Calendar date, fine; but why convert it a Gregorian date when that was not what Japan was using at that time. Was it converted to a date that was “pre-Gregorian” (that is before the Gregorian Calendar was adopted by Japan) – which has some reasoning; and so answers some of your questions.

As for your grander point about removing before discussion, I was completely justified as what was there was original research. See below. The onus is on you to properly present the footnote so that it is no longer original research, notwithstanding my contention the footnote makes an irrelevant point. If a statement of fact is not explained or attributed, it has to be removed until the editor conforms it to wikipedia style. Therefore, the footnote should stay removed until it is in proper form. We can take that to arbitration if you wish, but you will lose the argument.

As for the issue of the need for the footnote, simply put, the Japanese had a lunisolar calendar. Then they adopted in 1873 the Gregorian calendar. If someone wanted to take a pre-1873 date and see what it was in the Gregorian calendar, there are tables and calculations. The date of June 29 was likely rendered in the old fashion with the old months as per the lunar calendar (ie not "June" "July," not a month date corresponding with any solar calendar, perhaps Taian, UruSatsuki 7, 1865 if I correctly understood the conversion), then when research was done as Izumi reached old age, it was a relatively simple matter to take the lunisolar date, if that was how it was rendered, and find the corresponding date on the Gregorian calendar. Tables likely exist whereby you open a book and look up a date and the column next to it has the corresponding Gregorian date. In all likelihood, the calculation was not even needed! You seem to think this is some enormously complex undertaking, that we can't be sure what date was converted from what to what, how and when this was done... as if that has any relevance at all. Simply put, it doesn't! Alan, there is only one conversion - from the original lunisolar date to the Gregorian date! It is completely irrelevant when someone made that calculation. What don't you understand here about the conversion, why is in any way relevant who did the conversion, and where do you see a potential problem for an error? Because I completely fail to see where you see the room for error here that rises to the level of a footnote!

AS for your comments about my right to remove the content before discussion, this is a different issue in the end. Even if you are 100 per cent correct in what you say, as it stood, the footnote had to go, as it constitutes original research.

Let us review the exact text of the footnote: Izumi's stated birthdate is June 29, 1865, however as Japan did not adopt the Gregorian Calendar until January 1, 1873 his age may be inflated by 12 days. One of his 120 years was in fact 12 days shorter: his 8th? year of life, in 1872/3. His date of birth June 29, 1865 would be July 11, 1865 in Gregorian countries. (This assuming the date of birth has not been otherwise adjusted as no mention of this anomaly is made in the source.)

Problem #1: "his age may be inflated by 12 days." There is no explanation at all as to why this may be so. The way it is worded, it seems there is some factor about adopting the Gregorian calendar which leads to a discrepancy of 12 days. But why this is so is left unanswered. Further, there is no attribution for this statement. Who is claiming that his age may be inflated by 12 days? Since there is no explanation for the suspected 12 day inflation, we need the source for this claim.

Problem #2: "One of his 120 years was in fact 12 days shorter: his 8th? year of life, in 1872/3." This is a statement of fact with no explanation or citation. Why would his 8th year be 12 days shorter? How was this determination made? And where does this 12 days come in, as there as far as I can tell no "12 day" unit associated with the old lunar calendar which would come into play. And, again, failing an explanation, we at least need a source who suggests that Izumi's 8th year was short by 12 days. None is forthcoming.

Problem #3: "His date of birth June 29, 1865 would be July 11, 1865 in Gregorian countries." Uh, says who? What calculation are you employing here? If you don't explain why his date of birth might be the different date, then you have to cite a source who claims the different date. You have failed to do either.

Problem #4: "This assuming the date of birth has not been otherwise adjusted as no mention of this anomaly is made in the source." What "anomaly" are you referring to? What "adjustment" would have been made otherwise?

In sum, the entire footnote because it lacks any explanation as to the rationale as to how this discrepancy came about (other than some foggy and incorrect notion that adopting the Gregorian calendar leads to missing days) and completely lacks any attribution from anyone suggesting there is a problem, must be removed as per the wikipedia policy on original research. I don't know if this "anomaly" simply occurred to you and you inserted the notes, or whether you read somewhere that Izumi's date of birth may have not taken into account some conversion factor. Whatever the truth, the note as it stood had to be removed.

Here is how wikipedia puts it: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.

If we were talking about the Romanian, I'd say that we are probably on firm ground in terms of original research if we simply point out the possibility of an error between the conversion of dates in the Julian and Gregorian calendars, as there is a clear and readily understood commonality between the calendars which could easily lead to date confusion. So, even though we have no citation of someone saying "there may be a problem," we are probably okay. I, as I noted earlier, don't feel this warrants a note, but the consensus here is for the note.

However, we are not in similar firm ground when it comes to Japan, as there is no indication in the note as to how the error, if there was one, could possibly come about, nor is there any indication as to how the specific date and number of days was arrived at, nor is there any explanation as to how and why Izumi's 8th year of life may have been shorter by the stated number of days. And, finally, it would seem lacking any sources or explanation, the only person identifying any "anomaly" is the creator of the note himself. Therefore, it has to go. Canada Jack (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. But, I do agree with your attempt to discuss the issues fully. On the issue of of reasons - the onus is on the person making the change - and to do so in advance, for an established note that had been discussed many times. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate the fundementals of this discussion, however, I wish someone would delve into the possible inflation of Izumi's birthdate by 15 years due to misidentification, rather than 12 days due to misinterpretation of a calender. Although the calender issue is important, personally I'd like more information on the other. TFBCT1 (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Alan, in this case you are wrong, and so clearly wrong, that I am amazed this note was left intact for so long. In terms of original research, there are several unsupported statements of fact in the note. Which is reason enough for its removal. And, since I identified those unsupported claims, and inserted the relevant wikipedia note, your claims to the contrary are getting less credible as this discussion continues.

But there is a way to make the note meet the standards here for inclusion. First, explain how the particular dates and day adjustment you mention came about. Or, failing that, make a link to someone who makes the claim. The number of days you mentioned and the date you mentioned are quite specific. We need to know here at wikipedia where this information comes from. Even if you have a point about the removal of this before discussion, you should readily agree that the note fails to meet the standards and requires additional information and/or sources. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I can only agree with you, Jack. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think your first sentence explains the position perfectly. And that is why discussion should come first. We have two differing views. Alan Davidson (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could only explain to us where those 12 days come from exactly and why his eighth year? Extremely sexy (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The identification of a lunar calendar being used settles the arguement in my opinion. There does not exist a calculation from a Julian to a Gregorian calendar and the footnote becomes mute. TFBCT1 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan: Again, even if your "12 days" note is 100 per cent correct, as the note stood, it was original research and had to be removed. Supply a source/justification, then we can reinsert the note, and maybe have a vote on whether the note should stay given my argument on its accuracy. But not before then. Canada Jack (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some assumption that I contructed the note. It has been in place for months after discussion and various contributions. Why ask me - I did not put in the part about his "eighth year". I don't think a formal vote was ever required; just discussion and consensus. Indeed, I think there has now been sufficient discussion, time and consensus such that the note should be removed. While I have a differing view - I respect the process.Alan Davidson (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan, Alan! I didn't call out your name, you came running when I took the note out! Further, you defended the premise of the note, suggesting the intent there was clear. As for your claims that there was "some assumption that I constructed the note," you are correct, I assumed you constructed the note since you defended it so strenuously. My apologies for taking such an unwarranted leap. So, just for the sake of clarification, I decided to see who made the note. And this is what I found back in December:

Izumi's stated birthdate is June 29, 1865, however as Japan did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until January 1, 1873 his age appears inflated by 12 days. One of his 120 years was in fact 12 days shorter: the year 1872. His date of birth June 29, 1865 would be July 11, 1865 in Gregorian countries. (This assuming the date of birth has not been otherwise adjusted as no mention of this anomaly is made is the source.)

Imagine my surprise when I see that that was what you inserted, Alan, text which is nearly identical to what I took out last week! The differences? The part which says "his age appears inflated" was changed to "his age may be inflated"; "the year 1872" has been changed to "his 8th? year of life, in 1872/3." If you ask me, these are trivial alterations, so to pretend this is the result of some collaborative effort as you do is mendacious at best.

I don't really care so much if I agree with a contribution or not, if it can be sourced, or if there is a good argument for inclusion that others agree with. But I do care when someone refuses to engage in discussion in good faith, doesn't answer legitimate questions and then pretends he wasn't the author of the text in question anyway when he quite clearly was. As I said repeatedly, even though I don't agree with the Romanian footnote, I didn't touch it as there seem to be consensus for its approval. But with the Izume note you in effect wasted a week here avoiding the obvious - your note was wrong, based on a misunderstanding of how Japan adopted the Gregorian calendar. But instead of carefully considering what I was saying, you chose to draw out a debate and, in the end, pretend this really wasn't your creation anyway and lamely fell back on "process": I respect the process, you said. Bullshit. You wasted everybody's time here defending something that clearly should have been removed moved months ago. I took a look at your profile, and you seem to be a responsible, intelligent guy, so I am at a loss here, and I assume that pride here took precedence. I've found at wikipedia that when other editors raise questions, the best thing to do is address those questions. I've been wrong before on points of fact, or I argue a position no one else ends up agreeing with, but I never string out a debate simply in the hope that the questions will go away, as you did. Your contributions are valuable, Alan, though in this case your note was in error. But your actions here in effect cheapen the efforts of others. Canada Jack (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I really would like this to end - hence my last comment was to respect the discussion consensus (I did not suggest a vote). But I must respond and request an apology. I said above why ask me about the "eighth year" - I did not insert that. I did not say I did not insert the note, only that I did not construct it in the form which referred the the eighth year - which was the question to me. The note is right, but we disagree - and I respect that - please refrain from using abusive language. Alan Davidson (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan, you expect an apology from me? You are quite a piece of work. You deliberately strung out a debate on a point which you refused to acknowledge was dead wrong, even though I patiently explained why it was wrong. You pretended I "assumed" that the old calendar was Julian even though it is clear that that was your incorrect assumption, something you have yet to admit. And this bit about the "eighth year" - you truly have got to be kidding. All that was was someone adjusting the calendar year (1872) to Izumi's year (1872/3). And I fail to see how this adjustment changed the pertinent point here - that 12 days may have been dropped. Which is your initial point.

As for your rather incredible position that the note is "right," you have utterly failed to make the case. Indeed, you've not explained how those specific numbers and dates are correct, as you failed to explain a rationale. You've already dismissed my "assumption" that it came about via a conversion from the Julian calendar, viz: Second, the note as amended to the stage before your amendment made no assumption that the Julian calendar had been used. On the contrary that it is your assumption.

If that is so, Alan, what is the basis of the note? There is none, as far as I can see.

And if you can't supply an explanation, then you owe me an apolgy for wasting my time in drawing out this silly and pointless discussion over an issue that you identify but which you can't be bothered to explain for our benefit. Canada Jack (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)