![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm not quite certain that I see the point of this. The table is already sorted by "rank", which is kind of the point of the whole article, and it doesn't even really sort some of the other columns effectively. Furthermore, it forces a break between people who are the same age, instead of merging them in one row, which makes a lot more stylistic sense in my opinion. What do others think? Cheers, CP 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The sortable feature just adds an option to the table. If one doesn't want to re-sort it, one could easily not click on the sort icons. -- User:Docu
The only thing I could have against it are disadvantages to it (negative numbers). Zero's are not that. Anyways, it would be nice if we could sort the births and deaths, in chronology, but that I guess is only possible, like what Docu said, converted to numbers, and not dates. The thing listed the births/deaths by alphabetical month order by year first, which makes it useless. I'd vote to improve. I could ask around a Wikipedia-help desk and see if there's anyway around it. Neal ( talk) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
Seems pointless to me. DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk) 00:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Since no one has commented in a week, I'm going to do this. The consensus seems to be that the sorting is pointless. Having said that, the only actual detriment to it being here are stylistic concerns, specifically the merging of columns of people who have the exact same lifespans. Therefore, I think that the optimal solution is this: I will re-merge the relevant areas to regain the style, but retain the sorting mechanisms. This will, of course, disable the ability to sort but, if some use/new tool is discovered in the future, it will make returning to the sortable table a simple matter of unmerging the columns, rather than having to rebuild the sort function. Cheers, CP 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Merging cells breaks sorting, which makes calculating the totals error prone - I've reverted the cell merging. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-23 t21:49z
1.Since Lusitanic is an ethnicity (relating to Portuguese), it is not a race so won't be listed. Likewise, we don't specify German or French. Same for Hispanic.
2.East Asian and South Asian are geographic. So they have been broken up. Indians and Asians aren't the same race. People from India subcontinent are known as Indic. There's also Indo-European, but, I don't consider them European either.
3.Asian is also continental. They have been changed to Oriental. Likewise, Blacks in Africa aren't listed as Africans, but Blacks.
4.Since Lucy D'Abreu is half-White, born to the U.K. family (and later moved to Scotland), I listed her as White. If her father is Indian (and thus an Indian last name), then we can change her to I for Indic or Indo-European if that's what consensus wants. Neal ( talk) 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC).
And "W". "B" and "O" is just as much nonsense as what went before. Address my concern above. How would you label a Melanesian who is blacker skinned than any African or African-American? If you label then "Black" you would prove this classification is nonsense because Melanesians are no more related to people from Africa than they are to people from Europe. If you label them something else, it shows that the term 'Black" is not accurate. Just get rid of the race idea. As far as I can see it is defended only by a few regular editors here. When anyone else drifts in here, they oppose it. Another suggestion - put this up featured list status and see what the rest of the community thinks. I would put money on them saying that race has to go before it could reach featured list status. I might even do that myself when I have more time, but I am off on a wikibreak now for a few days. -- Bduke ( talk) 21:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
How would I label a Melanesian who is blacker-skinned than any African American? Well gee - Black as a race isn't by color. Black meant African descent. Is Melanesian from Africa? So no, we didn't label Black by skin color, but by race. Neal ( talk) 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC).
Please read the earlier discussions before commenting. It was sometime ago that the O was added to reflect the discussion page consensus. Alan Davidson ( talk) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am merely saying, this has all been dealt with at length; it will go back and forth if people do not read the discussion pages archived. I don't mind your view; but in 6 months someone may want it back; and so forth. Alan Davidson ( talk) 12:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot of your reasonings on why race should not be included are rather weak and meaningless. For example, you say race could not be scientifically determined. So why not remove it? Or potential problems of mixed races. And that the simplest solution is to simply get rid of it. And then for some people - we may not know their races. So why not get rid of it?
I'm afraid to tell you we don't know the genders of all these supercentenarians. Should we get rid of that? Yoshigiku Ito is listed as a male in Japan from 1856 to 1968. Then we found an article in Spain that lists him as a woman. Quite simply, how much evidence do we know Yoshigiku is a man? A mistake Guinness made. I asked a Japanese person what he felt if this was a male or female name. He was a little more sure Yoshigiku was female than male.
I can say listing gender is meaningless for the European side. We can just tell by the 1st name if it's a boy's name or girl's name. Do we need to know the genders of John and Mary? While gender is insignificant to Westerners, it is significant to the Eastern hemisphere. Asians names tend to be genderless. There is no standard on knowing whether a name in Chinese or Japanese is male or female. So no doubt, if you were Asian, you would feel the gender column is necessary. Quite frankly, the only Asians we have on our lists are from Japan, should we list genders exclusively just because of 1 country, Japan?
And then there are several Japanese cases we don't have a photo of, and none of us can "predict" whether a name sounds female or not. We would put 'F?' because we assume the person is more likely female than male. Obviously, who's to say any photo can determine a gender? My sister saw a bad photo of Jeanne Calment and thought she was a man. Some people on Robert Young's WOP group thought Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan looks like a man. Obviously, any old balding woman can look like a man.
So what does this mean? That means, scientifically, we could know someone's gender if we had a photo of them nude. If we don't have a photo of them nude, then there is no scientific way of knowing someone's gender especially if they are Asian.
So we don't have a nude photo of any of the supercentenarians. So there must be no scientific way of knowing their gender, correct?
But the point is - there is an objective truth out there. Just because we could never know whether an Asian name is female or not that died decades before we were born, that there is no objective truth out there. Who cares to argue that science can prove whether a skeleton was male or not?
Now, take me for example. I am half white and half Chinese. That is, a Chinese mom and White dad. And I am:
50% Chinese.
23.4375% Irish.
12.5% French.
12.5% German.
1.5625% English.
My Dad has a bad memory and does not keep that good of a tract. My Chinese Mom does not know my Dad's parents ethnicity. I got this down in a phone conversation with my Grandma in 2004, before she died. She died in 2006. Had I not had this from her, there is no scientific way for me to know my ethnicities in my life forever. No gene or anything. You can't take my blood sample, or examine my organs, and come up with the figures I have above. No science can prove that. So science cannot determine what I am. And neither can my Dad's memory. Does this mean there is no objective truth out there?
So you will ask me: what if someone is 1/4th White, 1/4th Black, 1/4th Asian, and 1/4th Hispanic. How now, should we put them as their race? Well - why not put all of them? So we know U.S. candidate Obama is half Black and half White, which might dominate as Black. But why not include both?
So if the race is known, then there is no conflict. I don't need any whiners regarding a couple supercentenarians who's gender is not known. If we don't know their race, like gender, we can leave it blank. Or put a question mark. Etc. Clear?
This leaves me the idea of bringing in ethnicities. I'd have to talk to Robert Youg about that - where the GRG could backtrack the ethnicities in their tables. Sure enough, we will some unknown with American supercentenarians. And unfortunately, if this is too hard of a concept to you, why should you get involved with it?
Now suppose you have a problem with integrating calculus equations. Does this mean you should get rid a Wikipedia article on integrating calculus equations? Why not let the people who can integrate calculus equations deal with that article? All you can ask is that they write the article as simplest enough for you to comprehend, and make learning easy.
Similarly, if we don't know the race or ethnicity of an individial, we leave it blank. The solution is not to get rid of it. We have a good idea on who the Jewish supercentenarians are. But no doubt, they are still categorized as White.
The U.S. census will list Emma Tillman as Black, but if we know she is 1/2 Black and 1/2 Native American, then we can list that. Why object to getting rid of details if we cannot have them for all?
Now I'll tell you my point of originally starting this section in this talk.
Hispanic and Lusitanic we say is neither a race nor an ethnicity, but a term. Well, we have continental races, such as Asian, European, and African. And by country, we have ethnicities, like French, Germany, Chinese, etc. So if Hispanic is another word for Spanish, and Lusitanic is another word for Portuguese, well then, Spanish and Portuguese are ethnicities. No doubt Hispanic and Lusitanic are too.
So I explained my reasoning on why I removed the Lusitanic and such. If we want to distinguish between someone ethnically from Spaina and Portugal, then why not distinguish a 'White' person from France or Germany? I currently have no objection to including ethnicity. But if we don't list ethnicity, well then, I explained why I removed the Hispanic and Lusitanic.
As with this Asian or Oriental, and so and so forth, I just want it consistent. Here are the potential options:
Type 1 Type 2
White European
Black African
Oriental Asian
And obviously, Native American, which is continental like my type 2, I imagine we don't have a word for them as a race. Native Americans are still Native Americans. Currently, I have the tables as type 1. If we want to move to type 2 column, I have no objection to that. Neal ( talk) 20:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC).
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm not quite certain that I see the point of this. The table is already sorted by "rank", which is kind of the point of the whole article, and it doesn't even really sort some of the other columns effectively. Furthermore, it forces a break between people who are the same age, instead of merging them in one row, which makes a lot more stylistic sense in my opinion. What do others think? Cheers, CP 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The sortable feature just adds an option to the table. If one doesn't want to re-sort it, one could easily not click on the sort icons. -- User:Docu
The only thing I could have against it are disadvantages to it (negative numbers). Zero's are not that. Anyways, it would be nice if we could sort the births and deaths, in chronology, but that I guess is only possible, like what Docu said, converted to numbers, and not dates. The thing listed the births/deaths by alphabetical month order by year first, which makes it useless. I'd vote to improve. I could ask around a Wikipedia-help desk and see if there's anyway around it. Neal ( talk) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
Seems pointless to me. DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk) 00:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Since no one has commented in a week, I'm going to do this. The consensus seems to be that the sorting is pointless. Having said that, the only actual detriment to it being here are stylistic concerns, specifically the merging of columns of people who have the exact same lifespans. Therefore, I think that the optimal solution is this: I will re-merge the relevant areas to regain the style, but retain the sorting mechanisms. This will, of course, disable the ability to sort but, if some use/new tool is discovered in the future, it will make returning to the sortable table a simple matter of unmerging the columns, rather than having to rebuild the sort function. Cheers, CP 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Merging cells breaks sorting, which makes calculating the totals error prone - I've reverted the cell merging. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-23 t21:49z
1.Since Lusitanic is an ethnicity (relating to Portuguese), it is not a race so won't be listed. Likewise, we don't specify German or French. Same for Hispanic.
2.East Asian and South Asian are geographic. So they have been broken up. Indians and Asians aren't the same race. People from India subcontinent are known as Indic. There's also Indo-European, but, I don't consider them European either.
3.Asian is also continental. They have been changed to Oriental. Likewise, Blacks in Africa aren't listed as Africans, but Blacks.
4.Since Lucy D'Abreu is half-White, born to the U.K. family (and later moved to Scotland), I listed her as White. If her father is Indian (and thus an Indian last name), then we can change her to I for Indic or Indo-European if that's what consensus wants. Neal ( talk) 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC).
And "W". "B" and "O" is just as much nonsense as what went before. Address my concern above. How would you label a Melanesian who is blacker skinned than any African or African-American? If you label then "Black" you would prove this classification is nonsense because Melanesians are no more related to people from Africa than they are to people from Europe. If you label them something else, it shows that the term 'Black" is not accurate. Just get rid of the race idea. As far as I can see it is defended only by a few regular editors here. When anyone else drifts in here, they oppose it. Another suggestion - put this up featured list status and see what the rest of the community thinks. I would put money on them saying that race has to go before it could reach featured list status. I might even do that myself when I have more time, but I am off on a wikibreak now for a few days. -- Bduke ( talk) 21:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
How would I label a Melanesian who is blacker-skinned than any African American? Well gee - Black as a race isn't by color. Black meant African descent. Is Melanesian from Africa? So no, we didn't label Black by skin color, but by race. Neal ( talk) 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC).
Please read the earlier discussions before commenting. It was sometime ago that the O was added to reflect the discussion page consensus. Alan Davidson ( talk) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am merely saying, this has all been dealt with at length; it will go back and forth if people do not read the discussion pages archived. I don't mind your view; but in 6 months someone may want it back; and so forth. Alan Davidson ( talk) 12:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot of your reasonings on why race should not be included are rather weak and meaningless. For example, you say race could not be scientifically determined. So why not remove it? Or potential problems of mixed races. And that the simplest solution is to simply get rid of it. And then for some people - we may not know their races. So why not get rid of it?
I'm afraid to tell you we don't know the genders of all these supercentenarians. Should we get rid of that? Yoshigiku Ito is listed as a male in Japan from 1856 to 1968. Then we found an article in Spain that lists him as a woman. Quite simply, how much evidence do we know Yoshigiku is a man? A mistake Guinness made. I asked a Japanese person what he felt if this was a male or female name. He was a little more sure Yoshigiku was female than male.
I can say listing gender is meaningless for the European side. We can just tell by the 1st name if it's a boy's name or girl's name. Do we need to know the genders of John and Mary? While gender is insignificant to Westerners, it is significant to the Eastern hemisphere. Asians names tend to be genderless. There is no standard on knowing whether a name in Chinese or Japanese is male or female. So no doubt, if you were Asian, you would feel the gender column is necessary. Quite frankly, the only Asians we have on our lists are from Japan, should we list genders exclusively just because of 1 country, Japan?
And then there are several Japanese cases we don't have a photo of, and none of us can "predict" whether a name sounds female or not. We would put 'F?' because we assume the person is more likely female than male. Obviously, who's to say any photo can determine a gender? My sister saw a bad photo of Jeanne Calment and thought she was a man. Some people on Robert Young's WOP group thought Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan looks like a man. Obviously, any old balding woman can look like a man.
So what does this mean? That means, scientifically, we could know someone's gender if we had a photo of them nude. If we don't have a photo of them nude, then there is no scientific way of knowing someone's gender especially if they are Asian.
So we don't have a nude photo of any of the supercentenarians. So there must be no scientific way of knowing their gender, correct?
But the point is - there is an objective truth out there. Just because we could never know whether an Asian name is female or not that died decades before we were born, that there is no objective truth out there. Who cares to argue that science can prove whether a skeleton was male or not?
Now, take me for example. I am half white and half Chinese. That is, a Chinese mom and White dad. And I am:
50% Chinese.
23.4375% Irish.
12.5% French.
12.5% German.
1.5625% English.
My Dad has a bad memory and does not keep that good of a tract. My Chinese Mom does not know my Dad's parents ethnicity. I got this down in a phone conversation with my Grandma in 2004, before she died. She died in 2006. Had I not had this from her, there is no scientific way for me to know my ethnicities in my life forever. No gene or anything. You can't take my blood sample, or examine my organs, and come up with the figures I have above. No science can prove that. So science cannot determine what I am. And neither can my Dad's memory. Does this mean there is no objective truth out there?
So you will ask me: what if someone is 1/4th White, 1/4th Black, 1/4th Asian, and 1/4th Hispanic. How now, should we put them as their race? Well - why not put all of them? So we know U.S. candidate Obama is half Black and half White, which might dominate as Black. But why not include both?
So if the race is known, then there is no conflict. I don't need any whiners regarding a couple supercentenarians who's gender is not known. If we don't know their race, like gender, we can leave it blank. Or put a question mark. Etc. Clear?
This leaves me the idea of bringing in ethnicities. I'd have to talk to Robert Youg about that - where the GRG could backtrack the ethnicities in their tables. Sure enough, we will some unknown with American supercentenarians. And unfortunately, if this is too hard of a concept to you, why should you get involved with it?
Now suppose you have a problem with integrating calculus equations. Does this mean you should get rid a Wikipedia article on integrating calculus equations? Why not let the people who can integrate calculus equations deal with that article? All you can ask is that they write the article as simplest enough for you to comprehend, and make learning easy.
Similarly, if we don't know the race or ethnicity of an individial, we leave it blank. The solution is not to get rid of it. We have a good idea on who the Jewish supercentenarians are. But no doubt, they are still categorized as White.
The U.S. census will list Emma Tillman as Black, but if we know she is 1/2 Black and 1/2 Native American, then we can list that. Why object to getting rid of details if we cannot have them for all?
Now I'll tell you my point of originally starting this section in this talk.
Hispanic and Lusitanic we say is neither a race nor an ethnicity, but a term. Well, we have continental races, such as Asian, European, and African. And by country, we have ethnicities, like French, Germany, Chinese, etc. So if Hispanic is another word for Spanish, and Lusitanic is another word for Portuguese, well then, Spanish and Portuguese are ethnicities. No doubt Hispanic and Lusitanic are too.
So I explained my reasoning on why I removed the Lusitanic and such. If we want to distinguish between someone ethnically from Spaina and Portugal, then why not distinguish a 'White' person from France or Germany? I currently have no objection to including ethnicity. But if we don't list ethnicity, well then, I explained why I removed the Hispanic and Lusitanic.
As with this Asian or Oriental, and so and so forth, I just want it consistent. Here are the potential options:
Type 1 Type 2
White European
Black African
Oriental Asian
And obviously, Native American, which is continental like my type 2, I imagine we don't have a word for them as a race. Native Americans are still Native Americans. Currently, I have the tables as type 1. If we want to move to type 2 column, I have no objection to that. Neal ( talk) 20:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC).