Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 7
 | 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. |
Deleting all mention of race
OK, let us try to see where consensus lies. For all the reasons given above and in previous discussions now in the archives of this talk page, I propose that all mention of race be removed from this article. I am not going to be bold and do it, as it will be quite time consuming and easy to revert. Please give you views below. I suggest this be left open for a month. --Bduke (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Support removal of all mentions of race.
- Remove. Race is a meaningless construct and unverifiable. --Bduke (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Remove - argument above says it all. Different people have different opinions as to what "race" actually is. Best to remove it completely. - fchd (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Remove - Race is someone's opinion, ie POV, not fact. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Remove - Subjective, unnecessary and needlessly antagonistic. Completely irrelevant to their status as the oldest people ever (perhaps we need "Wikipedia is not a statistics bureau"). Cheers, CP 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Remove - adheres to no specific guidelines, or the sources and guidelines seem arbitrary; too contentious of a subject for Wikpedia; has no demographic value at all in its current form. TFBCT1 (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Remove- All you need to do is scroll up and see the arguments on this page about what race is. I'm German but I live in the USA. Should I have a German flag? Adding what race a person is really does not add anything to this article and just causes conflicts. --Npnunda (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Support retention of race.
Further discussion
- First this is a loaded question. Second, it is original research to change what is said from the sources we use. I support the inclusion of knowledge - that is the knowledge we take from the sources. As Neal states above - if it is not known for individual cases then leave it blank, but we rely on the sources not opinion. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think this misunderstands the concept of original research. We have to make judgments of what to include. We need sources for what we include and we must not include what is original research. That, however, does not mean, that we have to include everything in a particular reference. We do not. If we did we have to include every single scientific fact in a research paper we cite. We do not to keep the wikipedia article less technical than the paper. As to being loaded, I think the whole question of race is loaded. That is one reason to not include it. --Bduke (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Calling the government census original research? Or the GRG? I thought original research was when you know something but don't back any sources of it. An example of this is editing your own Wikipedia article, or a grandmother's (that aren't backed by sources). Since when does Wikipedia make limits on that it should not include everything? Is there a maximum article-length size? Adding a race column seeming adds another centimeter of width to the tables. Adding race is similar to adding the boiling point of a chemical. Some boiling points are very hard to measure, that we can only make approximations. Should we get rid of those data? After all, they aren't paragraphs of facts - just data. For tables. Neal (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC).
- SO the US census currently includes 8 categories. Has it always had 8? Or have categories been added/delted as they see fit? Is there, or has there ever been, an "Other" category? Is there any certainty that those who filled out the census form really identified with the actual category they checked or was it merely the closest fit? The GRG's area of expertise is establishing age not "race". Just because it's from the census doesn't make it correct! And before you get back to "let's leave out the sex then" not only are there only 2 choices (leaving aside the possibility that possibility of the extremem minority who do not have XX or XY chromosomes, or are transgender or transexual, no doubt we'll hear about them if one ever reaches supercentarian status) I think it is fairly reasonable to assume people know which sex they are. And what abot other countries, do they have the same 8 categories? Just because there are more US supercentenarians than those from other countries doesn't make the US more right. In fact the assumption is quite obnoxious. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- My point wasn't that I drew the line at 8 races and we should all follow it. It was a start. Anyone that has a better claim, we should follow. But that's still not the point - because it's science. For Wikipedia, it's not about science. It's about sources. So there is no confusion, except when we 1.) feel the sources are wrong, or 2.) we find confliting/contradicting sources. Hence the nice usage of footnotes. Neal (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC).
- I am confused about what source you are talking about. The GRC uses only 4 race categories. Where does the eight come from? Frankly I do think that just following the GRC here is not reasonable. We need a source that the categories they are using are respectable and widely accepted. Then we can use the GRC as source for the race of individuals. We do not have that source. If it is the USA Census, that is not acceptable, because it leads to extending that US POV from individuals from the USA to those from elsewhere. The idea that we have sources for retaining the column on race is simply not correct. We have one source for the individual's race category. That is not enough. We also need, and certainly do not have, a source that says that talking about the individual's race is significant, important and notable. To me it is as significant as the colour of their hair. (Note I have separated off this discussion from "not voting" above so that is clearer.) --Bduke (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The GRG is the source that has the table. Then there can be sources on the individual level - like obituaries. You *asked* me about ethnicities like Melanesian. I obviously felt irrelevant to answer you because we don't have any cases in the GRG for Melanesian. We (GRG) only has White, Black, Asian/Oriental, Mestizo, and Native American. But you like to ask me cases about hypothetical races which we won't have to worry about - maybe in less than a hundred years, sure. Anyways, it's not up to us to decide whether a source is irreliable unless we have evidence they are. So it is acceptable to use the GRG as the source. The U.S.A. census us *only* for U.S.A. cases. We have different sources for people from different countries. Neal (talk) 01:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC).
- I am confused about what source you are talking about. The GRC uses only 4 race categories. Where does the eight come from? Frankly I do think that just following the GRC here is not reasonable. We need a source that the categories they are using are respectable and widely accepted. Then we can use the GRC as source for the race of individuals. We do not have that source. If it is the USA Census, that is not acceptable, because it leads to extending that US POV from individuals from the USA to those from elsewhere. The idea that we have sources for retaining the column on race is simply not correct. We have one source for the individual's race category. That is not enough. We also need, and certainly do not have, a source that says that talking about the individual's race is significant, important and notable. To me it is as significant as the colour of their hair. (Note I have separated off this discussion from "not voting" above so that is clearer.) --Bduke (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- My point wasn't that I drew the line at 8 races and we should all follow it. It was a start. Anyone that has a better claim, we should follow. But that's still not the point - because it's science. For Wikipedia, it's not about science. It's about sources. So there is no confusion, except when we 1.) feel the sources are wrong, or 2.) we find confliting/contradicting sources. Hence the nice usage of footnotes. Neal (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC).
- SO the US census currently includes 8 categories. Has it always had 8? Or have categories been added/delted as they see fit? Is there, or has there ever been, an "Other" category? Is there any certainty that those who filled out the census form really identified with the actual category they checked or was it merely the closest fit? The GRG's area of expertise is establishing age not "race". Just because it's from the census doesn't make it correct! And before you get back to "let's leave out the sex then" not only are there only 2 choices (leaving aside the possibility that possibility of the extremem minority who do not have XX or XY chromosomes, or are transgender or transexual, no doubt we'll hear about them if one ever reaches supercentarian status) I think it is fairly reasonable to assume people know which sex they are. And what abot other countries, do they have the same 8 categories? Just because there are more US supercentenarians than those from other countries doesn't make the US more right. In fact the assumption is quite obnoxious. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Calling the government census original research? Or the GRG? I thought original research was when you know something but don't back any sources of it. An example of this is editing your own Wikipedia article, or a grandmother's (that aren't backed by sources). Since when does Wikipedia make limits on that it should not include everything? Is there a maximum article-length size? Adding a race column seeming adds another centimeter of width to the tables. Adding race is similar to adding the boiling point of a chemical. Some boiling points are very hard to measure, that we can only make approximations. Should we get rid of those data? After all, they aren't paragraphs of facts - just data. For tables. Neal (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC).
- I think this misunderstands the concept of original research. We have to make judgments of what to include. We need sources for what we include and we must not include what is original research. That, however, does not mean, that we have to include everything in a particular reference. We do not. If we did we have to include every single scientific fact in a research paper we cite. We do not to keep the wikipedia article less technical than the paper. As to being loaded, I think the whole question of race is loaded. That is one reason to not include it. --Bduke (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I agree with Neal. We take the information from the source. To alter it or delete is to risk accusations of original research. Alan Davidson (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rubbish! While altering the information might be that is not what is being suggested. Removing incidental, irrelevant information can't be considered original research as it has no bearing on the core information, namely that of the person's age. And btw, race is not included in either living supercentenarians or oldest people so why should it be here? DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I have probably said too much here and argued too much, so I am going to make a final comment and then leave this until the end of the period I suggested above in the attempt to find consensus (I may however, if I have time, write a summary of the various different discussions that have occurred on race in this list).
The crucial argument for retention is that we must follow the sources. There are two questions:-
- Is the importance or notability of having race indicated on a list such as this supported by one or more independent sources? GRC lists the sources but I not do think it gives any reason why it is important or notable enough to be included. I do not see any sources. Now you will probably say that there are no sources that say including sex or country of residence of the people listed. That is correct. However, the policy is quite clear. There are lots of things in wikipedia articles that are not sourced, but if they are challenged then citations have to be produced. The inclusion of race has been challenged.
- The individual entries under race for individuals are sourced to GRC, which uses only four categories, abbreviated to "W", "B", "O" and "M". I see the problem that other sources would use different categories. We have seen in the discussion a British source which illustrates the "splitter" approach as opposed to the "lumper" approach. Many people would want to split "O' into Indian, Chinese and others. The GRC is just one point of view, actually an American point of view (POV). I raised the question of people from the South Pacific. If such people were on the list, I think it quite likely that GRC would label them as Neal suggested as "Pacific Islanders". That would be disputed in the region, as they would prefer "Melanesian" or "Polynesian". The problem with a table is that we can only really include one entry. To just use the GRC entries is giving undue weight to one particular POV. It just can not be NPOV. We can not therefore use GRC as a good source.
To me, more than any other arguments, these suggest that we have to remove this column on race in this and related lists. Other arguments such as the weakness of race as a defining concept, also point to deletion, but these two are firmly based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Bduke (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- May I ask this? If we pick and choose information from the source that we use (in this case mainly GRG) - doesn't that amount to censorship. A few months ago we had a substantial debate over which sources were reliable and which we should not use. (Much of this discussion was on the list of oldest living people site - where we use GRG as the main source - and we substantially rearranged the list and created a second list - the standard we established was GRG.) I find it irreconcilable to decide that GRG is the prime source and many others are deemed to be wanting, and at the same time not use the site as a source. Perhaps as a compromise, if that is needed, a short paragraph be inserted that race is an issue with many complicating factors, but we rely upon supercentenarian sources. Alan Davidson (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Alan, I really do not want to keep discussing this, but you have missed the point. If we did pick and choose, we would have different race categories in each case, so we can not pick anything. GRC is just one of many possible sources, but many other sources define the race categories differently from how GRC does. I guess I agree that GRC is the prime source for the names included, but is is one particular POV for the race entries. Hence it is fine for the entries but not for race, so we must delete race. --Bduke (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- My point is, we can't pick and choose. That would introduce POV. It really does seem we have no consensus on this issue. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Alan, I really do not want to keep discussing this, but you have missed the point. If we did pick and choose, we would have different race categories in each case, so we can not pick anything. GRC is just one of many possible sources, but many other sources define the race categories differently from how GRC does. I guess I agree that GRC is the prime source for the names included, but is is one particular POV for the race entries. Hence it is fine for the entries but not for race, so we must delete race. --Bduke (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The GRG has correspondents per country. So Robert Young is responsible for the U.S. races (which he uses the government census). France has its own correspondent. Germany has its own correspondent. Same with Italy, Spain, and Australia. The individual correspondents report to Robert Young, the senior chief admin. So all this U.S.-centric data is certainly true for the U.S. in the GRG. But not for the rest of the planet. Neal (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC).
1.Wikipedia policy is that major points of view must be included in order for an article to be NPOV. Deleting the 'race' category is actually POV: "I don't like 'race' so it should be deleted."
2.The U.S.A. has more people (300 million+) than the U.K. (60 million), Australia (20 million), and Canada (35 million) put together. The U.S.A. alone has over 40 million African-Americans. Many people 'assume' that someone born in England in the 19th century was 'white', but with the U.S.A. that assumption cannot be made. In fact, if we exclude Japan (where the 'race' categorization is obvious), nearly all the 'minority' supercentenarians come from the USA. Thus, the argument for using a U.S.-based approach is based on common sense and rationality. Not only that, the argument can be made that Europe itself is divided by ethnicity, with divisions such as France, Germany, Spain, etc., (even the U.K.-ers want to split England/Scotland)but the assumption is that anyone from 19th century Europe was probably 'white'.
3.So the U.K. used race in the 2001 census but might not in 2011. Last I checked, Wikipedia didn't exist yet in 2001. Wikipedia can change its mind in 2011, but right now if the U.K. uses 'race,' then to say that it doesn't count is wrong.
4.In the U.S.A., we have things like 'Black history month'. 'Race' becomes not just a factoid but an inspiration. Many African-Americans are told they have a lower life expectancy. However, when they see that some of them are living to 113, 114. etc., it can be inspiring.
5.The GRG data is also published in research journals, so to say that we can't use the GRG data is not correct. Note that Wiki policy says that the greatest article weight should be given to journal articles, and we find that 'race' is mentioned in US journal articles, some of which are not the GRG:
Ira Rosenwaike and Leslie F. Stone - Verification of the Ages of ...To understand the emerging phenomenon of supercentenarians (persons aged 110 and ..... of individuals being supercentenarians should take race into account. ...muse.jhu.edu/journals/demography/v040/40.4rosenwaike.html - Similar pages.
JSTOR: Verification of the Ages of Supercentenarians in the United ...Number of Potential Supercentenarians, by Year of Death, Race, and Sex Race Sex Year of Death Total White Black Other/Unknown Female Male All Years 671 419 ...links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-3370(200311)40:4%3C727:VOTAOS%3E2.0.CO;2-1 - Similar pages.
Validated Worldwide Supercentenarians, Living and Recently ...Race. Sex. Validated by. France. France. Marie Mornet. Apr. 4, 1894. Jan. 5, 2007 .... world-wide living supercentenarians for the year 2005. ...www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2008.0695 - Similar pages.
Validated Worldwide Supercentenarians, Living and Recently ...ing supercentenarians on our list (72 females. and 9 males), while 48 had died in 2006. L. IVING. Birthplace. Residence. Name. Born. Yrs. Days. Race Sex ...www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2006.9092 - Similar pagesMore results from www.liebertonline.com »
7. Even if one decides to not use 'race' on the world page, it should still be used on the U.S. data pages (such as state recordholders) since the majority of U.S. sources support its use.
8.Controversy does not mean something should be deleted. "Nationality" is another issue: was Andrei Kuznetsoff (born 1873) born in 'Finland,' 'Russia,' or the 'Russian empire?' What about a Polish person born in what was then Germany but is now a part of Poland? If someone was born in 1865 was it 'Germany,' the 'German states,' 'Prussia,' or the 'German Empire?' Is Taiwan a country? Is Kosovo? Ok, 'nationality' is fuzzy, as is race, but if we take a functionalist perspective:
A. The data tells us more of the story. 'Race' tells part of the story, as does geography. Currently, the US life expectancy is something like 79 for whites, 71 for blacks...so apparently race DOES tell part of the story. Just as place of birth, class, occupation, etc. help to tell the story, knowing a person's race puts their life in context.
B. Don't make a problem bigger than it has to be. Since 98% of the top 100 supercentenarians fit into the three most widely used categories (Black, White, 'East Asian'), where is the issue? Of the other two, using 'South Asian' for India and 'Mestizo' for someone for Puerto Rico seems to be a reasonable choice. Finally, part of the 'race data' point is to express diversity...the 'assumption' that because someone is from Puerto Rico, they can't be White (Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan) is both incorrect and itself racist. Yet deletion of the 'race' category will lead to monolithic assumption by nationality, is exactly the default value that we will see...is that any better? I think not. Neal (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I am only going to address three points. First, I did not say we can not use GRC because it is not in research journals. I said using it gives undue weight to one POV of labeling races. Second, the references you quote are difficult as I do not have full access to most of them, but in any event they rather look as if they are all pointing to Demography - Volume 40, Number 4, November 2003, pp. 727-739, but I could be wrong. Please add a statement to the top of the list that states why adding race to the table is notable and important and back it up with a good source. If that edit is acceptable, then I withdraw my objection for that reason. I will still affirm that the entries in the race column are just one POV and therefore we are giving it undue weight. Third, I do not have a beaf with the US articles as I have already said. Race is a US obsession not shared by the rest of the world so it is appropriate there. Everything you write above bears out that obsession. You are indeed a child of the USA. --Bduke (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well as a non American I disagree. That is, Neal is right. Race is valid. If there is a correllation between race and age, that says something. If there is no correlation between race and age, that says something. I suggest we should concentrate on improving knowledge, not deleting it. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely, no correlation is probably more significant. Alan Davidson (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The whole idea of correlating entries with race is quite meaningless, as it is impossible to separate the other factors. For example, there are quite a few entries from Japan, but none from China and only 0.5 (shared with UK) from India. You could conclude that there is a correlation and that Japanese people live longer than other Asian people, or you could just recognise that different societies have different health outcomes. I certainly do not opt for the former. Of course if you lump Japanese, Chinese and Indians together you can come to one conclusion, but if you split them you might come to another conclusion. That is why the choice of the different races you are going to use is important and why one choice is just a subjective POV. So, Alan, what correlation exactly are you referring to? Do you have some proper statistical analysis, or is it just arm waving? --Bduke (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- China doesn't have official government birth registration int he 1890s. Therefore, no in China can verify their age. Same with India. So yes - there is a country discrimination. There have been claims of people in China to be 120 or so. Same with Russia and other countries. We do have a longevity claims article that keeps track of non-verified case. Neal (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC).
- All conclusions made must be based on the source used. I believe it is wrong to pick and choose. To do so would be to bring in bias and POVs. Use of a different source may help; but otherwise I believe it is policy we cannot change; even by a vote. An encyclopedia reports from sources it does make judgments.Alan Davidson (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Even if the result is 100 to nil, it is against Wikipedia policy to make the proposed change. By selecting the source and then picking and choosing the information you want is the worst kind of bias and POV. We make hate a point of view or a person, but we do not censor it. The source should be faithfully reported; if necessary with footnotes to other sources. I would like an administrator to comment before changes are made and reverted - and there is an edit war. Removing information does not depend upon votes it is based on encyclopedic policy. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I just do not agree with you that this is against policy. We never use everything from a source. Also this is not an article about the GRG. If it was, sure we should say that they list race. It is a list of long lived people. Wikipedia works by consensus and has a policy of ignore all rules. This is not a vote; it is consensus seeking. At present however, it does not look as if you are convincing people by your arguments. I am not trying to drive this through against all opposition. I really am trying to get consensus. It has come up at least two times before I raised it. Each time there was a group stating the race should go, and a small number of regulars here just digging their heels in and insisting it stays. It needs to be resolved, so how? You suggest an administrator. Will that do it? I am an administrator. Administrators do not rule on content. They just have a set of tools. I would welcome other suggestions. --Bduke (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, we'll let the admins decide if consensus can override policy. I presented this case to WP:ANI. Neal (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC).
- Finished. Decision is there is no violation of any policy for removing the race (so Alan Davidson and Ryoung122 are wrong). Since the topic is closed (archived), if you find a 3rd or 4th reason, you will have to start a new section. So consensus can pick and choose what to mention. Neal (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC).
- Okay, we'll let the admins decide if consensus can override policy. I presented this case to WP:ANI. Neal (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC).
- I just do not agree with you that this is against policy. We never use everything from a source. Also this is not an article about the GRG. If it was, sure we should say that they list race. It is a list of long lived people. Wikipedia works by consensus and has a policy of ignore all rules. This is not a vote; it is consensus seeking. At present however, it does not look as if you are convincing people by your arguments. I am not trying to drive this through against all opposition. I really am trying to get consensus. It has come up at least two times before I raised it. Each time there was a group stating the race should go, and a small number of regulars here just digging their heels in and insisting it stays. It needs to be resolved, so how? You suggest an administrator. Will that do it? I am an administrator. Administrators do not rule on content. They just have a set of tools. I would welcome other suggestions. --Bduke (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was not aware of the ignore all rules rule. That is most interesting. But, it is to apply to improve the page; and that is in dispute. But, my view is that no consensus can permit censorship, POV breaches against policy; if so the content would be rules by opinion and not sources. Alan Davidson (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Amazing. The WP:ANI discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Consensus vs. Policy.. All this happened while I was asleep. We at the other side of the world have a different clock. I have some questions about some of the arguments, but I'll let those go. I just want to make one point about POV. Alan's concern is that by not accepting everything from the source, we are showing a POV. My concern is that by using just this source, we are introducing both a very American POV that race is important (and that importance is also not sourced in spite of the fact that it has been challenged) and the POV of the USA Census for the labels that are used (other countries use other labels, or of course none at all). It is an argument not for or against POV but an argument between two very different perceived POVs. The ANI conclusion is clear. It is as Neal gives it just above "there is no violation of any policy for removing race ..". I suggest we continue to try to develop consensus and work out the full month I suggested for this process. I am open to suggestions about how we determine whether there is consensus and what it is. --Bduke (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Link above is now at archive Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive383#Consensus vs. Policy.. --Bduke (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion ANI above, could not agree when policy overrides consensus. Clearly a group of 5 or 10 cannot rewrite a page against the policies. In any event, perhaps I should say this first; it is racist to remove the race column; and I cannot condone such behaviour. Each individual has a right to be there; if the stated race is inaccurate, then find a better source, or remove it on an individual basis, but removal is censorship and racist. Alan Davidson (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, I would like to restate that in regards to the race column, it would be better without it, if not including it is a benefit. The race column should also be removed if more than half of them are unknown, or blank. This is not the case. I also believe that race and ethnicity are 'equally' important. Ethnicity is just more specific. Therefore, anyone whom is against having them in a column in a table should also be against them being mentioned in an individual biographical article. I don't see how anyone should be against having them in a column of a table but not in an individual article. For example, 1 who wants to know the race of everyone in a table would have to click on their name to see their own article in order to read up on their race and/or ethnicity. Why do that when they can be listed on a table? And so and so forth. Neal (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC).
- I do not follow Neal's argument. The column on race just has a letter, "W", "B", etc., as abbreviations for "white", "black", etc. I do not see any article for an individual that states. "X's race is black". Ethnicity is often discussed in a nuanced way, but there is no simple minded bald statement of a person's race, and nor should there be. As to Alan argument that it is racist to remove the race column, I find that way over the top. It would just be a consensus decision that the article is better off without it, and that is what the WP:ANI folks said. It would quite clearly not be against policy to remove the race column. --Bduke (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why do we have to go over the obvious. There is no need to mention race if the ethnicity is given. Do you understand? Lucy Hannah says African American, Jeanne Calment says French, Katherine Plunket says Irish. Neal (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC).
- So, if it is so obvious, what conclusions do you draw about someone's race purely from the statement that they are French, or Irish?
- Their race. Neal (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC).
- Come on, be specific. What race would that be, if all you know is that the person is French? On the criteria used on this list a French person could be any of the categories used. Telling me someone is French is useful information, but it does not tell us where their ancestors came from and frankly I do not care about that. --Bduke (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is there confusion about what race the French and Irish ethnicities fall under? I.e., contradictions? I obviously agree that not all ethnicities are equally well known or obvious. Certainly someone could look up what an ethnicity falls under when in doubt. At the same time, telling someone's race does not give where their ancestors came from and that information is irrelevant for this table. Neal (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC).
- Bduke's point, as I understand and agree with it, is that ethnicities do not fall under "race". There are white French people, black French people, Arabian French people, etc. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, when I meant French, I didn't mean that as a nationality. No doubt, a Black person living in France would be Black, but French as a nationality (but not French as an ethnicity). This is like confusing the term 'Jewish' with religion and ethnicity. Someone could be of non-Jewish ethnicity but still be Jewish (of Judaism religion). Finding some cases of equivocation? Yes, we know words can have more than 1 meaning. Here's an example: The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was fine, I parked there. And got a fine. Neal (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC). Neal (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC).
- You are saying that there is one kind of French person who is ethnically French, while other kinds of French people are not. I think you will find the French find that offensive. There are black French people or North African by ancestry French people who very definitely think of themselves as ethnically French. That is of course what the French colonizers attempted very successfully to achieve. Why do you not accept that the term "race" is so fuzzy that it is quite useless. You just keep trying yourself more and more into knots. --Bduke (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand the difference between race and nationality. If an African refugee is given French citizenship, I agree that that person probably isn't ethnically French. But if somebody has lived all of their life in France, has ancestors going back three or four generations who have done the same, speaks French as a native language, and is in all respects a part of mainstream French society, you will have a very hard time convincing me that that person is not French, regardless of the colour of her skin. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- The GRG doesn't label Americans as 'American' by race. We do list what country they were born and what country they died. So it would be meaningless to label someone as 'American' or 'Australian.' But when we say French, we strictly mean ethnicity. Of course someone living in France their whole life could be considered French. But not as an ethnicity. Ethnicity is genetic. At the same time, step moms take offense when police officers go "But you're not the real Mom." Neal (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC).
- From Max Weber's definition of ethnicity, which I believe is the most widely-accepted one: "Those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, you want to use a definition based outside of genetic, so that it includes customs and culture. You basically want to bring a point on the race column: does it go by that definition, or genetic. That could certainly be a separate column. I would argue that if we had only 1 race or ethnicity column, it should be by biology, not by culture. If you want to start an additional column where it would imply cultural ethnicity, I don't think I would be against that. In any event, we don't have a COI problem with our current column as the GRG data uses biology, not culture. And a lot of their sources are scientific journals. Neal (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC).
- From Max Weber's definition of ethnicity, which I believe is the most widely-accepted one: "Those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- The GRG doesn't label Americans as 'American' by race. We do list what country they were born and what country they died. So it would be meaningless to label someone as 'American' or 'Australian.' But when we say French, we strictly mean ethnicity. Of course someone living in France their whole life could be considered French. But not as an ethnicity. Ethnicity is genetic. At the same time, step moms take offense when police officers go "But you're not the real Mom." Neal (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC).
- Sorry, when I meant French, I didn't mean that as a nationality. No doubt, a Black person living in France would be Black, but French as a nationality (but not French as an ethnicity). This is like confusing the term 'Jewish' with religion and ethnicity. Someone could be of non-Jewish ethnicity but still be Jewish (of Judaism religion). Finding some cases of equivocation? Yes, we know words can have more than 1 meaning. Here's an example: The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was fine, I parked there. And got a fine. Neal (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC). Neal (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC).
- Bduke's point, as I understand and agree with it, is that ethnicities do not fall under "race". There are white French people, black French people, Arabian French people, etc. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is there confusion about what race the French and Irish ethnicities fall under? I.e., contradictions? I obviously agree that not all ethnicities are equally well known or obvious. Certainly someone could look up what an ethnicity falls under when in doubt. At the same time, telling someone's race does not give where their ancestors came from and that information is irrelevant for this table. Neal (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC).
- Come on, be specific. What race would that be, if all you know is that the person is French? On the criteria used on this list a French person could be any of the categories used. Telling me someone is French is useful information, but it does not tell us where their ancestors came from and frankly I do not care about that. --Bduke (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Their race. Neal (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC).
- So, if it is so obvious, what conclusions do you draw about someone's race purely from the statement that they are French, or Irish?
- Why do we have to go over the obvious. There is no need to mention race if the ethnicity is given. Do you understand? Lucy Hannah says African American, Jeanne Calment says French, Katherine Plunket says Irish. Neal (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC).
- I do not follow Neal's argument. The column on race just has a letter, "W", "B", etc., as abbreviations for "white", "black", etc. I do not see any article for an individual that states. "X's race is black". Ethnicity is often discussed in a nuanced way, but there is no simple minded bald statement of a person's race, and nor should there be. As to Alan argument that it is racist to remove the race column, I find that way over the top. It would just be a consensus decision that the article is better off without it, and that is what the WP:ANI folks said. It would quite clearly not be against policy to remove the race column. --Bduke (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, I would like to restate that in regards to the race column, it would be better without it, if not including it is a benefit. The race column should also be removed if more than half of them are unknown, or blank. This is not the case. I also believe that race and ethnicity are 'equally' important. Ethnicity is just more specific. Therefore, anyone whom is against having them in a column in a table should also be against them being mentioned in an individual biographical article. I don't see how anyone should be against having them in a column of a table but not in an individual article. For example, 1 who wants to know the race of everyone in a table would have to click on their name to see their own article in order to read up on their race and/or ethnicity. Why do that when they can be listed on a table? And so and so forth. Neal (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC).
Re: Npnunda Strong Remove- All you need to do is scroll up and see the arguments on this page about what race is. I'm German but I live in the USA. Should I have a German flag? Adding what race a person is really does not add anything to this article and just causes conflicts. --Npnunda (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- We have flags by the country born. Not by race. The only thing it adds is what it adds. I'd like to see your premise about how it causes conflict. Neal (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC).
No Problem NealIRC. The flags aren't a big issue to me. Still if the flags are from the country born why do some have 2 flags like Charlotte Benkner? Please understand my comments are in good faith. The notes on this talk page are the "premise about how it causes conflict". Sure seems to me like alot of conflict. I'll leave it up to you guys after this. Regards --Npnunda (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. Well, Charlotte Benkner was born in Germany and emmigrated/immigrated to the United States in 1900. She holds the 'record' for the oldest person born in Germany. However, Germany records list those that were born and died in Germany. She was a footnote to their table. So I guess the U.S. flag is to show she spent the rest of her life in the U.S. I don't have a problem with this, but I might want to check to make sure that this is consistent between all other people on the list. Neal (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC).
The ANI discussion was completely unhelpful – one says “consensus can override policy (for example, under WP:IAR).” Another “That is simply and absolutely wrong. Under no circumstances can consensus overrule WP:NPOV and WP:V.” Another “IAR is a feather in the face of NPOV's cast iron hammer. It can't trump it or move it.” And then “The given policy dictates the level of consensus needed. NPOV, being our Number One Most Important Policy That We Serve, any consensus on any one little article page is irrelevant: it won't trump NPOV. Ever .” Another says “There is no policy conflict here.” Another says “I believe you're severely misinterpreting WP:NPOV. A person's race is not a "view", it is a fact.” Another says “I can't see any reason for removing the race column, since the sources include it and it is fairly significant. In my opinion, removing the race column would be bordering on censorship.” Another “WP:IAR requires a damned good reason to invoke.” Then “Guys, you can't "IAR" Foundational issues. You can't IAR over NPOV. It's just not going to happen, ever. We serve NPOV. Anything that takes away from or diminishes NPOV is not helping the encyclopedia, period full stop. So IAR is meaningless to discuss here.” May I suggest the conclusion was that if there is no policy involved there may be consensus, but if there is a breach of (for example) NPOV then consensus cannot override it. My view remains that we are using a reliable source; if you don’t like it – it cannot be censored; the solution is to improve it instead (more sources). Wikipedia is not about removal of information which several people regard as valuable, not only on this discussion page but also in discussions in previous months. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree completely that the ANI issue did not resolve the question of whether or not IAR could trump NPOV. However, it did resolve the more immediately relevant question of whether NPOV requires the inclusion of race. Not a single person who responded in that thread agreed with the interpretation that removal of the race column was in any way a violation of NPOV. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing requires the column; just as nothing requires th article. But to delete for censorship or to exhibit NPOV is protected. I believe on that point we agree. Alan Davidson (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- It really depends on your definition of censorship. It is true that to remove useful/pertinent information for the benefit of one group's sensibilities (children, Muslims, etc.) is contrary to Wikipedia policy. However, the removal of information because it does not add anything useful/pertinent to the article is not censorship; it's editing. I also agree that it is forbidden to violate NPOV; however, there is no reason that removing the race column would constitute an NPOV violation of any kind (a point on which nobody at ANI disagreed with me).
- There is no policy that requires the removal of that column, which leaves it a matter for consensus to hash out. As a participant in this consensus discussion, I don't think the column is in any way relevant to the subject of this article, and I question whether an objective categorization of "race" is even possible (if Barack Obama lives to be one of the world's oldest people, what letter does he get in his column?). My reading of this talk page and the ANI thread suggests that the vast majority of editors to have participated in discussing this issue agree with me. For that reason, I would suggest that the removal of the column is mandated, not by any policy, but by community consensus. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems we are in agreement - it does depend upon the definition of censorship - and while that remains, we should err on the side of including information - not breaching censorship policy. The title of this discussion is predicated on censorship. I believe you should aim to impriove the information, not give up and remove it. Alan Davidson (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Alan, why is the title of this section an issue? I called it "deletion of all mention of race" because race is in the table and I was proposing its deletion. It has nothing to do with censorship. It is also clear that you are not in agreement with Sarcasticidealist. I would also suggest that the consensus is that having race in this table does not improve the article. --Bduke (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that you're overstating the extent of our agreement. When I say that it depends on your definition of censorship, what I mean is that this would be censorship if your definition of same was "any removal of information". However - and pardon me for bolding - that is patently not the definition of censorship contemplated by WP:NOTCENSORED. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems we are in agreement - it does depend upon the definition of censorship - and while that remains, we should err on the side of including information - not breaching censorship policy. The title of this discussion is predicated on censorship. I believe you should aim to impriove the information, not give up and remove it. Alan Davidson (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not even I think that removal of the race column is censorship. I thought a general definition of censorship is removing things that people take 'offense' to. This incident I put in the same category with a periodic table column. Suppose in a periodic table, we argued that the boiling point should be removed, as we felt it could be inaccurate. But we felt it was necessary to keep molecular weight and density - but just not boiling point. Sure enough, there is no policy that I understand or know of that would be against that removal. I put that example in this same category of removing the race column. Tt would be better without it, if not including it is a benefit. Neal (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC).
- It is fine to bold to emphasis the point, but when I clicked on your link, the entire tenor of the link, was that material should not be censored. Perhaps more interesting was the next paragarph, which indicated that voting does not determine content; it says that although "straw polls" may be handy, the polciy states "polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion". If you do not like these facts from our source - improve it, do not delete. Please let me repeat - make an effort to find sources and improve it. Alan Davidson (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing requires the column; just as nothing requires th article. But to delete for censorship or to exhibit NPOV is protected. I believe on that point we agree. Alan Davidson (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)