C
caltrane74
Guest
Re: reply
Malvern, Rexdale and Jane-Finch, just solid red.
Malvern, Rexdale and Jane-Finch, just solid red.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
D
disparishun
Guest
"Becuase there still isn't agreement on what the meaning of "white" is."
Yes, but that's no different than saying there isn't agreement on what the meaning of "visible minority" is -- in this context it is precisely Statscan's decision of what the meaning of "white" is (www12.statcan.ca/english/...p127.htm).
Yes, but that's no different than saying there isn't agreement on what the meaning of "visible minority" is -- in this context it is precisely Statscan's decision of what the meaning of "white" is (www12.statcan.ca/english/...p127.htm).
D
doady
Guest
It is funny how the professionals working for the City of Toronto cannot draw maps correctly. The % VM population of census tract is what should be represent as a shade of red, not total VM population.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
doady:
Please read the fine print of the subtitle: Persons AND percentage
The colours are representative of the former. There are circumstances where it is more useful to have number of visible minorities in the tract than percentage, such as the level of ethnospecific service needs.
AoD
Please read the fine print of the subtitle: Persons AND percentage
The colours are representative of the former. There are circumstances where it is more useful to have number of visible minorities in the tract than percentage, such as the level of ethnospecific service needs.
AoD
D
doady
Guest
I know the colours represent the number of persons. I'm just saying that it is incorrect to use colours to show totals on a map. Colours should only be used to show rates. The map is wrong, it is simple as that.
S
spmarshall
Guest
Not necessarily true. A darker/lighter shade can represent density or concentration as well as absolute number. There are many types of demographics where rates may not necessary make sense, or where absolute numbers are needed, as Alvin pointed out.
I have a Masters in the field, BTW.
I have a Masters in the field, BTW.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
^ If for no other reason, the map makes sense as is because the five digit total VM figures - which need to be included for the rates to be properly compared, for servicing as Alvin says, etc - simply won't fit into all the borders of tiny little census tracts, while the shorter rate figures do. It may look "wrong" but smashing numbers together would look worse.
D
doady
Guest
Not necessarily true. A darker/lighter shade can represent density or concentration as well as absolute number. There are many types of demographics where rates may not necessary make sense, or where absolute numbers are needed, as Alvin pointed out.
I'm am not saying that using totals is wrong, I'm saying that they used incorrect method for showing totals. Shading is not the correct method, they should be using dots (as in the second map) or graduated symbols instead. Like different-sized circles for example.
The reason for this is because a map must be intuitive and easy for people understand. If you want to show totals, it makes sense to show this using size or numbers of dots in some way because these are totals as well, or can be measured as total numbers.
Shading is makes sense for rate, because that what a shade is: a relative intensity or density of one colour, perhaps compared to another (in this case, red with yellow). A colour or a shade cannot be represented or measured as a total number so it in turn should not represent total numbers. I know I am probably not explaining this properly, but I hope you guys understand what I am saying.
When the average person looks that map, they think the east-side of downtown hardly has any visible minorities at all because it is shaded yellow, even though more than half the population belongs to a visible minority. It is shaded yellow simply because the neighbourhood is small and so the total population was low to begin with, and so the VM population is low too.
On the other end of the spectrum, the neighbourhood west of downview airport is shaded completely red because its boundaries are huge, even though it actually has lower % of VM than east downtown.
The map is very misleading, and people will get the wrong idea from it. If they wanted to show total and % VM population at the same time, they should have used graduated symbols for the total VM population and shading for % VM population.
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
That's nice, you could be four generations in Toronto, and you're still labelled as not quite being one of us. I'd say Toronto does not have a visible majority any longer, so the term visible should just be dropped. A black person from Ghana has as much or little in common as an Irishman or a Chinese man, so there's little point in throwing the Ghana and Chinese people together unto one label.^ We're talking visible minorities. If you're born in Toronto to Chinese parents, you're still a visible minority.
B
bizorky
Guest
^Just imagine what happens when visible minorities become the majority?
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
I'd say that if you added up all the visible minority folks in Toronto and the GTA, they'd be the majority. Nothing wrong with that.^Just imagine what happens when visible minorities become the majority?
F
fiendishlibrarian
Guest
I am a distinctly visible minority at UTSC.
B
bizorky
Guest
I'd say that if you added up all the visible minority folks in Toronto and the GTA, they'd be the majority. Nothing wrong with that.
So no majorities, all minorities.
I see nothing wrong with that, either.