Talk:Felix von Luschan

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Austria

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Notes concerning the surname[edit]

The notes (and comparison with Graf Helmuth James von Moltke) are not 100% correct. While titles like "Ritter von" bekame part of the surname in Germany, they were completely abandoned in Austria. His name would just be "Felix Luschan" then. The explanation only cares about the German rule while it remains unclear why Luschan - although being Austrian - still was able to keep "von" in his name. Maybe because he didn't return to Austria after 1919? However, this needs additional explanation, only referring to the German situation does not solve this. . Flexmaen (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Felix von Luschan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306040923/http://www.oeaw.ac.at/antike/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Luschan.pdf to http://www.oeaw.ac.at/antike/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Luschan.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chart[edit]

Under direct sunlight in the afternoon, when I compare my own skin colour to the chart, I find approximately category 24, depending on where I measure exactly. But even though I live in Western Europe, I'm easily one of the palest people around.

Since the chart in the article was created by picking colours from an old scan, I suspect that the document had faded considerably and that the original chart was no longer accurate by the time it was scanned in.

Also, there should be some discussion about viewing conditions. The chart was originally printed on paper, which like skin reflects light, but a computer monitor is its own light source. When doing the comparison I had to make some assumptions based on my own experience of the brightness of my display, but a screen chart like this should be accompanied with a way to calibrate the relative brightnesses. And nowadays even just printing the chart is no longer a viable way to get around this due to the use of optical brightening agents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm not the first to have noticed problems with the chart: [1] Apparently the glass pieces got heavily discoloured over time and we cannot know any more what they originally looked like. Furthermore, even at the time people found it hard to get a consistent reading. I'm removing the chart.

I undid these removals because I'm not convinced this is adequate reason for removal. It is of historical interest, not one of contemporary use. If there are problems with the colors, then that should be explained in the article itself rather than deleting the image. Ie, if there are notable problems with the color hues in the chart then that seems like very reasonable information that should be included in wikipedia. Deleting doesn't make any sense here. Cburnett (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense at all. A simple chart like this cannot serve a historical interest and no matter how much text we put next to it, it looks likes a reference for skin tones and it invites being used as such. People who look at a chart like this might see no reason to even read the accompanying text, and in that case it doesn't matter how well we explain in the article that this is a collection of wrong colours. And if the reader does read your proposed accompanying explanation, he'll conclude that the colours in the chart are wrong and were not used historically and shouldn't be used presently. Why have a table of wrong colours to begin with? That doesn't actually add information to the article at all. The chart serves no useful purpose at all.

For historical interest, some pictures of museum artefacts would be much better. If you've got some, please add them, but I'm removing the chart again. If you really think the chart should be there, please try to properly argue your case here first.

P.S. If you edit an article, provide an edit summary.

The chart illustrates a significant part of the work von Luschan is remember for, so it is obviously relevant and of interest to readers of his biography. It seems extremely unlikely that anyone looking for a "reference for skin tones" (if there are any) would end up on the biography of an Austrian doctor that died a century ago. – Joe (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]