Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mexicanos en usa 2010.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mexicanos en usa 2010.png

[edit]

This map appears to be make believe. While the southwestern portion of the map shows realistic data, the color coding for New York state in particular is absurd. In 2010, most counties in New York state had very little Hispanic population (less than 5%), and the populations they had were mostly Puerto Rican, not Mexican (See data at http://www.census.gov/2010census/data/). There is no way the Mexican (or Hispanic) population of upstate New York is comparable to the Mexican population of central Texas. The color coding for Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island also seems highly suspect. Take a look at this map from 2000 for comparison. Also note that this map is the only contribution of user R0j1n3g70. Kaldari (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Specific example the map is false: Both Washington County, Rhode Island and Pima County, Arizona are shown in the same color. According to the 2010 Census, the Hispanic population of Washington County, Rhode Island is 2.4%. The Hispanic population of Pima County, Arizona (which is on the border with Mexico) is 34.6%. You can verify this yourself at http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=44. Considering that the percentage of Hispanics who are Mexican is much higher in Arizona than in Rhode Island, the disparity for Mexicans would be even more extreme. Kaldari (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmh, even if we assume that the map itself is correct, it's still rather useless because it's missing a proper legend/description. --El Grafo (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete as having no real educational use, unless the description page is improved to include at least a legend and preferably a source for the data displayed. I'm not convinced it's entirely made up, since it seems similar to the conservapedia map (and our version) in many respects, but maybe it's mislabelled (as Mexicanos when it should be Hispanics, say) or based on non-Census data. Without a source it's hard to know. --Avenue (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure the map is blatantly wrong (except for the Southwestern U.S.). In the Southeastern US, for example, Hispanics are mostly concentrated in urban areas, but the map shows them being more populous in rural areas than urban areas. Do you really believe that there are a higher percentage of Mexicans in Northern Alaska than in Memphis or New Orleans? And do you believe that Rhode Island has the same percentage of Mexicans as Southern Texas? Look at the Hispanic maps at http://www.census.gov/2010census/data/. They are significantly different. Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree there's definitely something wrong with it. If you believe it's a hoax, I'm not going to try to dissuade you. But I don't know enough to be sure that it is a hoax. People do make mistakes, and it seems to me that the map might merely be showing mislabelled Census figures. --Avenue (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Lack of good description, legends, souce of data etc is not sufficient reason for deletion (or else we need to delete an awful lot of images!). I see no evidence the user created it as a hoax, and check their global contributions, this is not their only contribution. As with other similar cases just mark it as {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the reasons you are listing are mentioned in my deletion nomination. The reason for deletion is that the image is a hoax and is outside of Commons' scope. We don't have any reason to host randomly made up maps with no relation to anything factual or fictional. If you need specific evidence this map is a hoax, please see "Specific evidence the map is false" above. Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I addressed your specific reason for deletion - that you claim the image is a "hoax", as I stated you provide no evidence that the image was created as a hoax. You provide evidence of why the image is inaccurate if it purports to represent the distribution of Hispanics, but it doesn't purport that - and that is evidence that it is inaccurate (if representing Hispanics), not that it was ever intended as a hoax. Suggesting that it is a hoax, means that it was created and uploaded with the intention of misleading people, and was indeed used for that purpose - evidence that it is a hoax might be that it was uploaded and used in an article to mislead people ... was it?
The source you mention has a link to [1], which states that there are categories "Mexican" and "Mexican American" in the 2010 census. Does the map represent those responses?
I re-iterate, inaccurate, or lacking description is not a reason for deletion - those are reasons for fixing it, not deleting it.
If it can be shown that the purpose of the upload was to attack someone, or disrupt an article with false data, then I would accept it was a hoax, otherwise just mark it as yet another image that needs further work, --Tony Wills (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at my evidence? The data isn't simply inaccurate, it is wildly wrong by an order of magnitude, whether or not it is describing Mexicans or Hispanics. Mexicans are a subset of Hispanics, thus Mexicans cannot outnumber Hispanics in a given county. There is no data on Mexican or Hispanic populations in the U.S. that shows anything close to what this map shows for New York State, Alaska, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Rhode Island. I can come to no conclusion other than that this map was created to mislead readers about Mexican demographic information in those areas. As it looks like you live in New Zealand, you may not be aware of the fact that Mexican immigration into the U.S. is a huge political issue here. Conservatives in the U.S. are constantly claiming that Mexicans are "taking over the U.S.". A map such as this would be very useful to promote such claims. Kaldari (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unused is not a reason for deletion. Only clearly wrong if we assume it represents something that it doesn't purport to (Hispanics).
"Unlabeled" is a lack of description, not a reason for deletion. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unused means it needs a clear education scope, that it doesn't squeak by by being in use. It is clearly wrong. Let us look at the Census data: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf tells us that Hispanics make up 37.6% of the population of California (page 6) and that they make up 15.1% of the population of New York. Page 7 tells us that out of the 7 million Hispanics in the Northeast, less then one million, 13%, consider themselves Mexican, compared to 21 million Hispanics (include 16 million of Mexican origin) in the West. And yet the Northeast is lit up on this map, despite having fewer Hispanics and a lower percentage of Mexican Hispanics. To poke on one small area, Franklin County in western Massachusetts has 2250 Hispanics out of 69 thousand people, for 3%. Even if they were all of Mexican origin, unlike the surrounding area, the US as a whole averages 6% Hispanic of Mexican origin, so they shouldn't be lit up in the second most intense color. It's wrong. It's clearly wrong. Clearly wrong maps that have no sources, no uses, and no one defending them as correct or useful should just be deleted as having no educational use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This deletion nomination is an example of why we shouldn't accept the idea of deleting perfectly good quality, properly licensed, properly categorized images that are a little deficient in description. I expect anyone who has a little education in this area would recognize the possibility that it wasn't an equal interval classification band map - it has been a minor education to me at least. So I stress such images, that are deficient in description, should simply be labelled or classified as such, so that someone with knowledge or interest in the area has the chance of using it and/or fixing the description. If we delete it (the name of our wiki process for hiding files from view) we are just wasting every bodies time and wikimedia resources
    Percent Hispanic or Latino quantile map
    . I leave it as an exercise for the knowledgeable reader to determine the classification units --Tony Wills (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a good example of content that isn't worth spending this much time over. You were able to quickly produce a replacement that is correctly titled and properly labelled. It shows patterns similar enough to the nominated map that it seems fairly likely that the nominated map is based on data about Hispanics, not Mexicanos, just as I initially suggested. But that is the easy part. There are enough differences to make it clear that the two maps are not using the same scale, at the very least, and I think that figuring out its true scale will not be so easy.
Not only that, but the nominated map shows much more uniformity across nearby counties (at least in the Northeast and Midwest) than your map. I do have some experience with this sort of data, and that's the sort of thing that sets off alarm bells in my mind. Not that the map is necessarily a hoax, but that the underlying data has probably been dealt with in suboptimal ways (e.g. unnecessary rounding or aggregation). Trying to guess exactly what's gone on would be very tricky. Unless the uploader can shed some light on these issues, I really think we are better off with it simply being deleted.
"Unlabelled" is fine if we're talking about a bird or something else that someone might recognise. Then we can hope that someone knowledgeable will fix up the description later. Perhaps it might even turn out to be something we have no pictures of. But for a patch map like this one, figuring out what it really shows is so much harder than simply replacing it that I think there's no point in keeping it unless the uploader helps fix its description. --Avenue (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is reasonable to expect that it is a map of what it says it is - Mexicans (not just Hispanics), and that there would differences between the data for the two. The purpose of my uploaded Hispanic map is to show that this map is clearly credible. If it is simple to replace it, then please do, I have found no other map, nor any easy way to generate one. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mexicans are generally a subset of Hispanics. If you have data about non-Hispanic Mexicans, it didn't come from the US census and we'd love to see it. Of course, the fact that there's enough of them to produce the results we're seeing on this map is surprising, as is the fact that they're moving to entirely different places then their Hispanic brethren.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I wasn't clear enough. While the nominated map shows too many oddities to be absolutely sure, it seems most likely to me that it is a botched map of the distribution of Hispanics. It is certainly much much much more likely to be about Hispanics than about Mexicans. Even if the Mexican-American population could shift that much over a decade (compared to the Conservapedia map referred to in the nomination), it wouldn't have happened without us being very aware of it by now. --Avenue (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean that "equal interval classification band map"? Franklin County, Massachusetts has no more then 3% Mexicans, and likely more like 0.5%. The map you show tells us that certain counties in Texas that are a lighter color then Franklin County, MA, have more then 12.3% Hispanics, so either a county in MA that on average should have 13% of its Hispanics as Mexican has close to 100% AND many counties in Texas have less then 25% of their Hispanic population as Mexican (despite 84% of Texas's Hispanic population being Mexican; table 2 divided by table 4 in the PDF I cited). The intervals don't have to be equal; if the colors correspond to a contiguous range of percentages, then they're wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
?? What are you on about? Are you saying the map I uploaded is wrong too? --Tony Wills (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The map you have is presumably right; it says that certain counties in Texas have at least 12.3% Hispanics, and census data tells us that 84% of those are Mexican, that is those counties are at least 10% Mexican. Census data tells us that Franklin County in Massachusetts, which this map marks as having a higher percentage of Mexicans, is no more than 3% Hispanic, and Hispanics in the Northeast as a whole are 13% Mexican. And yet Franklin County is marked as darker on this map of Mexicans then those counties in Texas. There's no way the Census data can be reconciled with this map under question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
?? What do you mean? It is clearly what it says it is, but has quantile classification bands. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is unambiguously wrong. If it is supposed to refer to Mexicans, well, there simply aren't that many Mexicans in Florida, which has mostly Cubans. If it is supposed to refer to Hispanics in general, there are not that many Hispanics in upstate New York. Upstate New York is darker than the Florida panhandle, the Atlanta area, Hawaii, and many other places in your map, even though the official U.S. Census map has those places as darker. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I find it incredible that, since my upload of the quantile banded Hispanic map, that people are still approaching this discussion as though this map is a hoax, or highly inaccurate etc. There is no evidence that it is a hoax, only that some areas show something that various viewers didn't expect. The evidence is that it is very similar to the Hispanic map and is what it says, a map representing Mexicans in the US. This is most likely using the 2010 census data showing the distribution of people who declared themselves to be Mexican or Mexican Americans (as opposed the previous Hispanic classification which also included assumptions based on surname and language spoken). This is a graphical representation to show an overview of the country, if one wants to compare specific states or counties one looks at the census data tables. For some reason people are demanding of this graphic a far higher standard of documentation and preciseness than most other files on Commons. The way to improve Commons is not to delete every file that is not perfect, but to fix them, or find a better replacement. The standard on Commons, if one has serious evidence to show that it is wrong (which I don't believe it is), is to mark a map as {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} , not to delete it after a cursory look. Deletion serves no purpose, it would just make it a hidden file on the wiki server that no one can ever use for anything, we are not here as gatekeepers to decide what is good for people to use in their projects. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the data. Everything I can find from the Census data tells me there are few Mexicans in the Northeast. Explain to me why Franklin County is so dark on this map. If you don't think it is wrong, show me why, because I've clearly explained why its numbers are grotesquely wrong. It's labeled counties in Connecticut that are 90% white and are not havens for immigration as having more Mexicans then places in Arizona and New Mexico. Justify why you don't believe it's wrong. If it's not supposed to be accurate at a state or county level, then it shouldn't be drawn with sharp lines at state or county level.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find you incredible. "Preserve it so someone can fix it later" does not make sense if it's something that it's worth no-one's effort to try to fix. Nobody cares about this useless map, especially not the uploader. And I'll feel terrible if they turn up now and tell us how they made it and where the data is from, but it'd be pretty funny at least. If there is ever a need for this particular map, whatever the hell it actually is, then someone will make it. And it's not going to be some savant with knowledge of all US census data ever who stumbles into Category:Disputed maps looking for a special project. Your ability to apply one principle to everything without even wondering if what you're saying makes sense is amazing. --moogsi·(blah) 23:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (in my vanity I assume "you" refers to me ;-), I am seldom called incredible :-).
If no one cares about this useless map I wonder why it was ever uploaded, or thought worth discussion ...
  • But here are the reasons I am saying it should not be deleted:
1) I hate the idea that just because an uploader is not here to defend them that files are deemed to have no one defending them as correct and that there is no one who cares about this useless map. In the long run the uploader of any file here will not be around to defend their files (disease, death, frustration or boredom ...). With no evidence to the contrary we assume good faith, and that the uploader indeed still asserts that this file is correct.
2) Moving a file which is only deficient in description from where any number of people can potentially fix it, to a category called "deleted" files where only admins can see it, and it will never be fixed, seems to serve no purpose.
3) Few files are worth all of us wasting this amount of time on, but it is all about the principle. This is a wiki, the only qualification required is access to the site and ability to operate an input device (probably a keyboard and mouse) (I expect there are a few university projects out there using either trained orangutans or AI to edit here ;-). We don't rely on experts, it is a crowd sourced project, sufficient eyeballs will hopefully produce a useful result ... if we don't know the answer, maybe someone else will. If a map is wrong or deficient then fix it or just mark it as such, no need for a long discussion, dissection of the file, or US census savants. Simple process, low cost, nothing lost (not much gained ;-). --Tony Wills (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(now where is my next banana ;-)
Yes, we're a wiki, and the way wikis work is that people go around cleaning up after trained orangutans who edit Abraham Lincoln to claim he liberated the orangutans. That Commons does little of that doesn't mean it should do none. If you make a map or diagram and you want it to survive your exit from the project, make sure you add a caption explaining what it means and where the data comes from. Even a simple assertion from the uploader that the file was correct would still mean nothing; we still need to know how to interpret it and where the data comes from.
This is not a file that is deficient in description only. It's wrong. To fix it would take as much time as to produce one from scratch.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did mean you. Finger pointing is not cool so thanks for taking it with the good humour which was intended. I just came back to this page and couldn't believe there was such a huge discussion here. I see a bit better where you are coming from now. Still completely disagree, of course --moogsi (blah) 23:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mexicanos_en_usa_2010.png&oldid=93622871"