Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to the GRG Supercentenarian Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and you can only read the forum. If you want to ask a question, provide new information, or help other members, you can register as a Forum Member. The forum will ask you to validate your e-mail address. You will then be able to post in the "About Supercentenarians" category only. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free!

Join the GRG Supercentenarian Forum!

If you're already a Forum Member, you can log in below:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Table B3 (Aug 11 2013)
Topic Started: 20 Oct 2013, 23:35 (1,291 Views)
Robert D. Young
Member Avatar
GRG Forum Co-Founder

Greetings,

I read the Aug 11 2013 Table B3 update tonight.

Some minor issues to consider:

1. Consistency...if a person's geographic place of birth has changed since their birth, should we use (now place X) as well as the place of birth?

Some candidates to consider:
James McCoubrey--born Newfoundland (now Canada?)
Elizabeth Stefan--born Austria-Hungary (now Romania?)
Theresia Staffler-Breitenberger--born Austria-Hungary (now Italy?)
Fannie Buten--born Austria-Hungary (now Poland?)
Lillian Joelson--born Russian Empire (now Belarus?)

2. Photos...we should try to add hyperlinks to photos on the GRG website when possible. Also, Zachariah Blackistone now has a photo, but his listing is still blank.

3. Subdivisions--Mark, I noticed you started adding French subdivisions. I'm not sure this is necessary on a main list, unless the place is not continental France (i.e., Guadeloupe, Algeria). Point to discuss.

4. Punctuation...Mark, you have some extra punctuation on cases such as Hermann Doernemann. Where do we draw the line with non-English accent marks?

5. Jasper Bennett...why is the name "Britt" listed? Is that a middle name?

At the very least, Mark, please review these five issues. I think we want to have the next Table B update in January 2014, but we can make updates/changes as we go.
Senior Consultant for Gerontology, Guinness World Records (from Nov 23 2005)
Senior Claims Researcher, Gerontology Research Group (from June 1999-2012, 2014).
Senior Database Administrator, Gerontology Research Group (from Dec 2012)
Director, GRG Supercentenarian Research and Database Division (from Feb 12 2015)
Founder, World's Oldest People Group (from June 2002)
Co-Founder, GRG Supercentenarian Forum (from 2011)
Bureaucrat, Gerontology Wiki (from Oct 2 2007)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stefan Jamin
Member Avatar


Elizabeth Stefan was born in the hungarian part of Austria-Hungary and it's corret that it's today part of Romania. The same with Maria Corba (died in West Germany).

Maria Mika was born in Austria-Hungary (Bohemia) - today Czech Republic. Peral Lutzko in Austria-Hungary (Galicia) - today Ukraine. And so on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Waclaw Jan Kroczek
Member Avatar


Fannie Buten was born in Gallicia, Polish autonomous region of Austria-Hungary, now her birthplace is part of Poland.
Edited by Waclaw Jan Kroczek, 28 Nov 2013, 18:34.
GRG Administrative Assistant for Case Validation Summaries (from Aug. 15, 2015)
GRG Correspondent for Poland (from Sept. 13, 2013)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stefan Jamin
Member Avatar


Now, last option isn't so good - galicia was a multinational region with the strong polish population...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Waclaw Jan Kroczek
Member Avatar


Stefan Jamin
22 Oct 2013, 07:58
Now, last option isn't so good - galicia was a multinational region with the strong polish population...
Hence, we should consider her birthplace as a point, not whole region of Gallicia, which partially is now Poland, but its eastern part is now Ukraine.

Nevertheless, before the Three Partitions and after 1918 it was politically Poland. Now the birthplace also lies in Poland, close to Ukrainian border.

I like Gallicia. It is the Professional term, but I fear, little known to wider publicity. And it is noneless rather traditional, cultural term, not political.

Geographically, Mrs. Buten,s birthplace is Poland.
Not Austria and not Hungary.
It is the Subcarpathian Voivodeship.
GRG Administrative Assistant for Case Validation Summaries (from Aug. 15, 2015)
GRG Correspondent for Poland (from Sept. 13, 2013)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark E. Muir
Member Avatar
GRG Forum Co-Founder

Waclaw Jan Kroczek
22 Oct 2013, 01:17
Fannie Buten was born in Gallicia, Polish autonomous region of Austria-Hungary, now her birthplace is part of Poland.
It can be:
-"Austria-Hungary (now Poland)"
-"Gallicia" (now Poland), truly historical terms' undergo
- or just "Poland", when we give up historical background and concertrate on geographical one.
I think there is only one choice here:

"Austria-Hungary (now Poland)"

In my opinion, we cannot rely on today's geography to put down what we should put down, i.e. only "Poland". This is because "Poland" today did not exist between 1867 to 1917, correct?

So whether the Poles who were born in that era were ethnically German, Polish, Russian, in different parts of today-Poland, the focus should be only on the birth place at that time. If that birth place was strongly Russian, and that land was then given to Romania or Ukraine, then we say "Austra-Hungary (now Ukraine)" for example.

Why do I mention ethnicity? To point out that we will always have people, for example, that may have been born in Silesia, which was a province of Kingdom of Prussia in the German Empire (people there mostly spoke German?). I'm guessing that by quickly reading the history of Silesia that it was considered to be part of Poland back in 17th Century. So maybe a person born there has Polish ancestry, and that it's part of Poland today, but the problem is when a random supercentenarian was born in 1902 in Silesia (we know who), we should say this:

"German Empire (now Poland)"

Robert prefers "Germany" rather than "German Empire", I can understand that -- I just think that saying "Germany" automatically makes people think of today-Germany's borders, which is not a good idea. The only time we should say "Germany" is if, in fact, the birth place is *STILL* in today-Germany's borders. I would agree that it could be silly to say "German Empire (Germany)". In that case, we can just say "Germany".

But if the birthplace now belongs to somewhere else, then I think we really need to say "German Empire (now Country)" because saying "Germany" lead readers to picture today's borders.

Map time!

(This is mostly for my reference since I'm one who's learning European geography, which is directly based on political geography, though):

Map of German Empire in 1914:

Posted Image

Silesia is the bottom right tip of the German Empire:

Posted Image

Map of Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914:

Posted Image

I just feel strongly that we follow the borders at the given time (which is basic geography, despite that being political geography) and recognize where the birth place is today as well.

Sorry for the long post, :)

* MEM
Mark E. Muir
Gerontology Research Group (GRG) Correspondent, North America, (2011 - present) and Senior Administrator (2014 - present)
Co-Founder of GRG Supercentenarian Forum (12-Dec-2011 to present)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Waclaw Jan Kroczek
Member Avatar


Mark E. Muir
22 Oct 2013, 13:05
Waclaw Jan Kroczek
22 Oct 2013, 01:17
Fannie Buten was born in Gallicia, Polish autonomous region of Austria-Hungary, now her birthplace is part of Poland.
It can be:
-"Austria-Hungary (now Poland)"
-"Gallicia" (now Poland), truly historical terms' undergo
- or just "Poland", when we give up historical background and concertrate on geographical one.
I think there is only one choice here:

"Austria-Hungary (now Poland)"

In my opinion, we cannot rely on today's geography to put down what we should put down, i.e. only "Poland". This is because "Poland" today did not exist between 1867 to 1917, correct?

So whether the Poles who were born in that era were ethnically German, Polish, Russian, in different parts of today-Poland, the focus should be only on the birth place at that time. If that birth place was strongly Russian, and that land was then given to Romania or Ukraine, then we say "Austra-Hungary (now Ukraine)" for example.

Why do I mention ethnicity? To point out that we will always have people, for example, that may have been born in Silesia, which was a province of Kingdom of Prussia in the German Empire (people there mostly spoke German?). I'm guessing that by quickly reading the history of Silesia that it was considered to be part of Poland back in 17th Century. So maybe a person born there has Polish ancestry, and that it's part of Poland today, but the problem is when a random supercentenarian was born in 1902 in Silesia (we know who), we should say this:

"German Empire (now Poland)"

Robert prefers "Germany" rather than "German Empire", I can understand that -- I just think that saying "Germany" automatically makes people think of today-Germany's borders, which is not a good idea. The only time we should say "Germany" is if, in fact, the birth place is *STILL* in today-Germany's borders. I would agree that it could be silly to say "German Empire (Germany)". In that case, we can just say "Germany".

But if the birthplace now belongs to somewhere else, then I think we really need to say "German Empire (now Country)" because saying "Germany" lead readers to picture today's borders.]

I just feel strongly that we follow the borders at the given time (which is basic geography, despite that being political geography) and recognize where the birth place is today as well.

Sorry for the long post, :)

* MEM
Mark E. Muir
You know my preference, Mr. Muir.

I prefer the birthplace of Mrs. Buten to be written just Poland

I wish to avoid thus all possible misunderstandings.
It is true that Poland was not fully independent state, but Gallicia had strong Polish authonomy.
People living there, unlike in other territories, had Polish schools, Polish offices, local Polish authorities and could freely use their native language.
This territory became then part of independent Polish state in 1918.

Writing things as they were just politically makes the people confused. Most of them are not familiar in difficult history of the region and who to whom was subordinated politically at those times.

For instance, few days ago, someone deleted Mr. Pajączkowski-Dydyński from the List of Polish supercentenarians on wikipedia for the reason that then Poland didn't existed. I undid the deletion. It shouldn't matter if the country was not politically independent or was "almost independent" if the country had the three following things:

1. The people, speaking the same language.
2. The land involving geographically considerable area.
3. The culture that binds the people and the land together.

I would strongly encourage GRG, as the humanistic society, to go beyond the political borders in this case.

The equal sigh between the geographical factor and political factor shouldn't be placed in Polish cases.
Please, look at the map below.

Posted Image
I Republic of Poland, The Three Partitions

In Poland's case, when all the ethnic Polish lands in such act of violence were taken by the neighbouring empires, geography and politics are two different things. Yes, there did not existed independent Polish state, but the Polish country did existed and survived. With its own culture, language and the people.


I like the way how GRG sorted out the problem with Alsace-Lorraine.
GRG wrote "Alsace-Lorraine" not France or German empire, because it was the region of unstable political status. I believe that the problem with Poland should be solved the same way. No more Russian, German or Austrian empires. The place where the people were born was Poland.


I'm not in position of making rules here. I don't have the right.
I didn't even validated Mrs. Buten myself.
I can only serve with this little advise as GRG correspondent from my respective country, which is great honour in itself. :)

Greetings,
Waclaw Jan Kroczek


btw: Mrs. Pauline Spyra was born in Silesia. Maybe there can be a little correction from "Germany" into "Germany(now Poland)"

I live in Silesia. It is a region with strong German influences. People there speak their home dialect/regional language: Silesian. It is very alike to Polish language but with notoceable borrowings from German.
The people describe themselves either as "Poles and Silesians" or "Silesians and Germans". Those German-Silesians are the biggest minority in Oppeln Voivodeship.
E.g. my great-grandmother, as a simple peasant farmer woman, spoke only Silesian.
Edited by Waclaw Jan Kroczek, 22 Oct 2013, 17:21.
GRG Administrative Assistant for Case Validation Summaries (from Aug. 15, 2015)
GRG Correspondent for Poland (from Sept. 13, 2013)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anson Davis
Member Avatar


Waclaw Jan Kroczek
22 Oct 2013, 16:41
Mark E. Muir
22 Oct 2013, 13:05
Waclaw Jan Kroczek
22 Oct 2013, 01:17
Fannie Buten was born in Gallicia, Polish autonomous region of Austria-Hungary, now her birthplace is part of Poland.
It can be:
-"Austria-Hungary (now Poland)"
-"Gallicia" (now Poland), truly historical terms' undergo
- or just "Poland", when we give up historical background and concertrate on geographical one.
I think there is only one choice here:

"Austria-Hungary (now Poland)"

In my opinion, we cannot rely on today's geography to put down what we should put down, i.e. only "Poland". This is because "Poland" today did not exist between 1867 to 1917, correct?

So whether the Poles who were born in that era were ethnically German, Polish, Russian, in different parts of today-Poland, the focus should be only on the birth place at that time. If that birth place was strongly Russian, and that land was then given to Romania or Ukraine, then we say "Austra-Hungary (now Ukraine)" for example.

Why do I mention ethnicity? To point out that we will always have people, for example, that may have been born in Silesia, which was a province of Kingdom of Prussia in the German Empire (people there mostly spoke German?). I'm guessing that by quickly reading the history of Silesia that it was considered to be part of Poland back in 17th Century. So maybe a person born there has Polish ancestry, and that it's part of Poland today, but the problem is when a random supercentenarian was born in 1902 in Silesia (we know who), we should say this:

"German Empire (now Poland)"

Robert prefers "Germany" rather than "German Empire", I can understand that -- I just think that saying "Germany" automatically makes people think of today-Germany's borders, which is not a good idea. The only time we should say "Germany" is if, in fact, the birth place is *STILL* in today-Germany's borders. I would agree that it could be silly to say "German Empire (Germany)". In that case, we can just say "Germany".

But if the birthplace now belongs to somewhere else, then I think we really need to say "German Empire (now Country)" because saying "Germany" lead readers to picture today's borders.]

I just feel strongly that we follow the borders at the given time (which is basic geography, despite that being political geography) and recognize where the birth place is today as well.

Sorry for the long post, :)

* MEM
Mark E. Muir
You know my preference, Mr. Muir.

I prefer the birthplace of Mrs. Buten to be written just Poland

I wish to avoid thus all possible misunderstandings.
It is true that Poland was not fully independent state, but Gallicia had strong Polish authonomy.
People living there, unlike in other territories, had Polish schools, Polish offices, local Polish authorities and could freely use their native language.
This territory became then part of independent Polish state in 1918.

Writing things as they were just politically makes the people confused. Most of them are not familiar in difficult history of the region and who to whom was subordinated politically at those times.

For instance, few days ago, someone deleted Mr. Pajączkowski-Dydyński from the List of Polish supercentenarians on wikipedia for the reason that then Poland didn't existed. I undid the deletion. It shouldn't matter if the country was not politically independent or was "almost independent" if the country had the three following things:

1. The people, speaking the same language.
2. The land involving geographically considerable area.
3. The culture that binds the people and the land together.

I would strongly encourage GRG, as the humanistic society, to go beyond the political borders in this case.

The equal sigh between the geographical factor and political factor shouldn't be placed in Polish cases.
Please, look at the map below.

Posted Image
I Republic of Poland, The Three Partitions

In Poland's case, when all the ethnic Polish lands in such act of violence were taken by the neighbouring empires, geography and politics are two different things. Yes, there did not existed independent Polish state, but the Polish country did existed and survived. With its own culture, language and the people.


I like the way how GRG sorted out the problem with Alsace-Lorraine.
GRG wrote "Alsace-Lorraine" not France or German empire, because it was the region of unstable political status. I believe that the problem with Poland should be sorted in the same way. No more Russian, German or Austrian empires. The place where the people were born was Poland.


I'm not in position of making rules here.
I didn't even validated Mrs. Buten myself.
I can only serve with this little advise as GRG correspondent from my respective country, which is great honour in itself. :)

Greetings,
Waclaw Jan Kroczek
I removed Jerzy Kazimierz Pajaczkowski-Dydynski from the list of Polish supercentenarians on Wikipedia because it has been the custom on Wikipedia to simply just include the place of birth when they were born (Austria-Hungary for example) and the current location of their birth place. I understand the difficulties of Austria-Hungary, German Empire and Russian Empire. A while ago, someone removed all the Austria-Hungary cases, like Venere Pizzinato from the list of Austrian supercentenarians.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Waclaw Jan Kroczek
Member Avatar


Anson Davis
22 Oct 2013, 17:23
I removed Jerzy Kazimierz Pajaczkowski-Dydynski from the list of Polish supercentenarians on Wikipedia because it has been the custom on Wikipedia to simply just include the place of birth when they were born (Austria-Hungary for example) and the current location of their birth place. I understand the difficulties of Austria-Hungary, German Empire and Russian Empire. A while ago, someone removed all the Austria-Hungary cases, like Venere Pizzinato from the list of Austrian supercentenarians.
Presumely she was born in Southern Tirol.

This is another one difficult region.
I assume that the only Mrs. Pizzinato-Papo's connection with Austria-Hungary was the birthplace, only politically Austro-Hunarian back then.
For the rest she was Italian woman and her birthplace is mentioned in tables as just "Italy".

Posted Image

Nice to see you here Anson.
Congratulations for all the cases you've validated so far!
GRG Administrative Assistant for Case Validation Summaries (from Aug. 15, 2015)
GRG Correspondent for Poland (from Sept. 13, 2013)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark E. Muir
Member Avatar
GRG Forum Co-Founder

Quote:
 
At the very least, Mark, please review these five issues. I think we want to have the next Table B update in January 2014, but we can make updates/changes as we go.

Okay, I'll reply to each of those issues below:

Quote:
 
1. Consistency...if a person's geographic place of birth has changed since their birth, should we use (now place X) as well as the place of birth?

Yes. For the main reason where "Austria-Hungary" actually encompasses several modern-day countries so we want the readers to know which modern-day country the place of birth resides in now.

Quote:
 
2. Photos...we should try to add hyperlinks to photos on the GRG website when possible. Also, Zachariah Blackistone now has a photo, but his listing is still blank.

For generation of Table B, the hyperlinks get lost in the transition from Master Data. I researched this and learned that Excel's Advanced Filter does not preserve hyperlinks in the output. I will talk with Chris Law & Miguel Quesada for alternative solutions, other than manually changing the Table B list with hundreds of possible hyperlinks to "Y" entries. However, certainly, we can edit those that do have a picture such as Zachariah Blackistone to a "Y" from blank.

Quote:
 
3. Subdivisions--Mark, I noticed you started adding French subdivisions. I'm not sure this is necessary on a main list, unless the place is not continental France (i.e., Guadeloupe, Algeria). Point to discuss.

I actually added a column in the Master Data to deal with localities but I had not transitioned all entries there, so the main "Birthplace" and "Residence/Place of death" columns still had the French subdivisions. That would not appear in future editions as I would have the French departments, for example, listed in the columns regarding localities.

Quote:
 
4. Punctuation...Mark, you have some extra punctuation on cases such as Hermann Doernemann. Where do we draw the line with non-English accent marks?
It actually has been frustrating for me to work with non-English accent marks in the Name field of the spreadsheet because when I do a search of the name, it does not show up as a match. Same idea with the web page .... if we go there now, and we type Dornemann, it won't show it as a result because "o" is not listed.

An idea in my mind to resolve this was to add one more column in Master Data called "Native name" where I can enter the correct characters such as Dörnemann (separate from the "Full legal name" column because that includes all names of a person). This would be used for internal purposes only. Then the main "Name" column will not have any special characters at all, and that will be used on the website as well.

NOTE: remember that "ö" translates to "oe" in English, just like translating "ß" to "ss" in English (for Else Assmann). So we would be spelling those names with the extra letter in their surname, such as Doernemann and Assmann, but for consistency's sake and searchable ability's sake, we can display those names if that's the consensus.

Quote:
 
5. Jasper Bennett...why is the name "Britt" listed? Is that a middle name?
I actually can't remember but I think I explained why in an e-mail a year ago or so. Or perhaps it was the same idea like James Henry Britt, Jr. in where the full name was displayed. Either case, I think Jasper was not using his first name, but Britt instead. I'll look into this again and provide justification if I can.

Cheers,

* MEM
Mark E. Muir
Gerontology Research Group (GRG) Correspondent, North America, (2011 - present) and Senior Administrator (2014 - present)
Co-Founder of GRG Supercentenarian Forum (12-Dec-2011 to present)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Feedback on GRG Tables · Next Topic »
Add Reply