File talk:Catholicpopulationsnew.png

In the USA there are different Catholic ratios in every state. Could this map be more different for every state? (This applies for any other country)


 * This seems out of scope for the image in question, but another image might be appropriate for Roman Catholicism in the United States. The per-state statistics on each state page could be used, or you could add statistics by diocese ( has the relevant data). For an article on religion, using religious and not political boundaries might make more sense. Llachglin 23:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then Northern Ireland should be the same as mainland UK Rob.derosa 13:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is, in the current image. Notice that Northern Ireland is blue, as is the rest of the UK, and Ireland is red. If Northern Ireland were displayed separately from either the UK or Ireland, it would be yellow on the map (40% Catholic). Llachglin 20:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that I uploaded a new version of the image at about 2pm on the 26th June! :P Rob.derosa 05:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Source and accuracy
The claimed source for this file has no map, just numbers. This map claims to represent the numbers by tinting. There is NO indication as to who performed the data entry, and if the tinting corresponds to the numbers from the source. Was this done by manual verification? If so, there is no indication as to who did that and how correct it is. How do we know there were no arithmetic errors in manual verification. The data for France may look ok, but who checked Lithuania? How about Belgium? How about Madagascar? This file does not pass WP:PROVEIT and should be marked as unsourced. History2007 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The same quibbles would apply if this were a table; the tinting may be wrong, as a Wikipedia table may have a typo. A useful editor would check and replace as needed.


 * What arithmetic errors? The source gives percentages directly - and sorts by them; no arithmetic is needed.


 * To say it is unsourced would be a lie - since the source is specified; it would be a lie if the tints were wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What is not clear to me is: "How do you know the tinting process was correct and which map software was used to build the map?" I see no information as to who used what software to build the map and if the data used is actually the data from the claimed source. As for your comment that a "useful editor would check and replace", that can not be done with a map, unless one has access to the map software, which at this point remains unknown. The map can not be corrected, unlike a table. And given that many countries (say Estonia, Eritria, Guatemala, Honduras, to name a few) are hard to see on the map, the numbers can not be easily compared. And I think your statement on my talk page that my request for clarification is "fraudulent" is totally unjustified.


 * In my view the fact is that there are many unknowns about where and how this map came about. I did leave a message for the person who loaded the map asking for clarification, but no answer has been provided. Therefore, it is "unclear" how this map was created and if it actually corresponds to the claimed source. Based on WP:PROVEIT the burden is not on me to check every country, but on the editor who adds the material. What is the problem with stating this fact on the page, so users are informed that "the source and accuracy of the map are questioned" and the map can not be totally relied upon? History2007 (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, your arguments are without merit. We assume that someone who uses a source to create something on Wikipedia does that in good faith and accurately. You are free to point out errors, but the burden is now on you since a source has been provided for the map. Ucucha 18:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with that. That argument will open the door to countless graphs and maps within Wikipedia whose validity can not be verified since the underlying software and its operation is unknown. Indeed these would fall under WP:OR. History2007 (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. To verify the contents of the map, you just need to look at any country on the map, look at the legend to see what number range the colour stands for, and read the source to see if the figure reported there falls within that range. Yes, that is precisely how graphs and maps on Wikipedia are supposed to work. Now please stop the frivolous wiki-lawyering. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actualy, I do not think you can stop me from asking questions, whether you are an admin or not. Another user compared your sternness to North Korea judges. I disagree with you. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And I disagree with you, your concerns about this page are odd and seem rather pointless. What does it matter which software was used to make the image? It only matters if the image accurately represents the numbers in the source. If you found some were not accurate, ask for them to be corrected or correct them yourself, as there are plenty of programs available for editing this file type, you dont need the exact same program.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are some inconsistencies in the map (maybe the source has changed). For example, shows that Lithuania has 80.01% Catholic population, which means that in the map it should strictly speaking be coloured red (it's orange currently). Similarly Madascar has 23.42% Catholic population from the source, which means it should be coloured green (it is currently yellow). I haven't checked other countries, but presumably this needs checking. 80.135.18.150 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Amen, and thank you 80.135.18.150. That was what I was trying to say. History2007 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, I am now fixing this using GIMP. Please let me know if there are any other countries that are wrong. Ucucha 21:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have completed an audit of the map now; there were several other errors. However, I am hesitant to upload this new version, since I discovered that the source said 42.5% of the population of Syria is Catholic. I adjusted Syria's color accordingly, but it doesn't seem right. Ucucha 21:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Syria indeed seems to be an error in the source. The entry actually links to a details page for Syria, where a much more plausible figure of 2% (20,000 out of 1,000,000) is given. The original map was presumably going by that figure, which was probably reasonable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2% seems pretty reasonable. However, that figure appears to be for the Melkite Archdiocese of Antioch only; it gives the total population as 1,000,000, which is much less than the actual population of Syria. Ucucha 23:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, those who would like to apologize to me for being right about questioning the accuracy of the map, please form a line. Thank you. Moreover, as Ucucha pointed out elsewhere the map comes from church docs and has that as a problem. And, as another user pointed out elsewhere, the range coding of 20% gives a "distorted" view with respect to land mass and creates a NPOV problem. History2007 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You didn't claim the map was incorrect. You claimed it was impossible to know whether it was correct. People did exactly what you were told you should have done yourself, and by doing so, proved you wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you did not read. I specifically said "How do you know the tinting process was correct?" It is not my responsibility to check every fact. I can just question facts in Wikipedia, that is my right. And I was right to question this map. Are you saying I do not have the right to question the accuracy of items? And I am still not clear how every country was checked. How did people see all the small countries on that map anyway? History2007 (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, you said the map should be marked as "unsourced" when it clearly has a source. The discrepancies between the source and the map may have been the result of later updates, as 80.135.18.150 mentioned; we don't know. Wrong arguments remain wrong when they are used to argue for something that is right. Ucucha 23:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I still consider this map unreliable and unsourced as a map. I started by saying: "The claimed source for this file has no map, just numbers." And I questioned how we know that the map is a real reflection of the numbers given that the process used in its creation remains unknown. I was right. The process had errors and the map "claimed source" which were numbers was not a map source. And again, and again and again, no one wants to apologize to me for the upfront use of the word fraudulent against me. Now how do you spell one sided Mr Admin? History2007 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think the real source of the problem is the lack of technology in Wikipedia. I added this to my list of suggestions for better technology: User:History2007/Improving_Wikipedia History2007 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I just stumbled into this discussion. The only serious issue I see here is that it does not clearly state who drew the image and released it into the public domain. To determine if the image is truly legally public the person who released it must be clearly stated (not a user alias but the actual person). And each subsequent editor who modifies it needs to be stated explicitly as well since they partially hold the license. The other issue is that the description does not clearly state an "as of" date. Obviously this data changes over time so, even though a link was provided, a year should still be stated.
 * Beyond that, it is not a policy of Wikipedia that any image be "real reflection" of anything. The only remotely related requirement is that the image description must clearly state what the image is. In general if the data shown is not genuine the description should say so clearly. There is not explicit requirement that the source of the data be provided in the description, though I would say that it is good practice to do so. The point is that it is not the responsibility of the image description to justify why it is meaningful. That is the job of the article that uses it.
 * It is neither a requirement that the software used to generate an image be specified.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Question. Why is Lebanon shown as less than 20% Catholic when in fact most sources show it to be approximately one-quarter Catholic? For example, see this 2008 report from the U.S. State Department showing Lebanon as 26% Catholic. Majoreditor (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)