Talk:Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen

message: Would the phrasing "in Antarctica" work? -Fsotrain09 22:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: I categorised this article with 'possibly living people'... if she were alive today, she'd be 93. It's not incredibly unlikely that she's still alive.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Living? 

message: The article claims Solveig to be the "first person born south of the Antarctic Convergence", but it doesn't specify where was she born, but I deduce it was in Grytviken. Now, Grytviken is at coords -54.28150° -36.50800°. That's a little bit northen of Ushuaia. Now, the Antarctic Convergence's article says that the size and location of the Convergence is not really fixed, but it doesn't vary more than half a degree.
Considering that continental America is sourthern to Grytviken, and that people inhabited that area before the arrival of the Europeans, how can we claim this person to be born 'south of the Convergence? The map of the Convergence's map shows Tierra del Fuego outside the Convergence, but Grytviken inside it.
In short, I think we should rephrase the opening paragraph to was the first person born inside the instead of south of. It is more accurate (since the Convergence limit is not a parallel). --Mariano(t/c) 19:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 11,000 "south of" vs. 17 "inside" Google hits.  "South of" has an unambiguous, precise meaning: Your location is south of the Convergence if, moving straight northwards, you cross it.  So I don't think the suggested rewording is a good idea. Apcbg 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but move straight westwards from Grytviken, and you will also cross the Converge. Perhaps is not as unambiguous as you think. --Mariano(t/c) 20:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No its not ambiguous because you cannot get inside the Convergence by moving northwards. Apcbg 21:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But you can moving northeast. Given the fact that the limit of the Convergence is not set by any parallel, using North/South with it doesn't seam like the best choice of words.--Mariano(t/c) 22:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here is not in which direction one can move -- you can move also to the space or to the ocean bottom -- but the issue is to check whether you are inside or outside that closed curve, the Convergence, and moving in north-south direction does it unambiguously.  That's that.  As for the choice of words, the Google search demonstrates that English speakers (including native English speakers which both of us are not, I guess) prefer "south of" to "inside", in a 11,000:17 ratio.  If you feel in a position to teach English the Englishmen and the Americans, I don't. Apcbg 06:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Have it your way. I though it would be wise to make it clearer for the reader who might get the wrong impression that the Convergence is a flat line (I know I got that impression too). --Mariano(t/c) 13:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one doesn't know what the Convergence is, then "inside" and "south of" are equally clear, or unclear.  This article is not the place to educate people what the Convergence is, but the text has an internal Wiki link to the article Antarctic Convergence where the shape of the Convergence is well explained (varying latitudes etc.). Apcbg 15:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South of / inside