This is an archive of past discussions about Circumcision. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago40 comments11 people in discussion
Emilfaro: Attention! I uploaded the first version of the map on the 21st June. I am sure about this because I always upload and edit the page at the same time. My edit was: 16:45, 21 June 2008 Emilfaro (102,543 bytes). And now it looks like I added the image that DIDN NOT EVEN EXIST at that time. Can anyone explain that? (By the way my original colors were: Green=Yes, it's there; Red=No, it's not there. And they were inverted on the 23rd June image by RasterB. I am not RasterB.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilfaro (talk • contribs)
Your original colors were terribly biased - they weren't green it's there, they were green it's good that it (the foreskin) is gone, and red = stop, go get it whacked off because it, the foreskin, is still there. They were reversed simply to make them logical - green = natural state, maroon = color of exposed glans. RasterB (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
File:Forbidden Knowledge.png I actually don't care about colours as you can see. I wonder how have you managed to remove my image and put your in place just in two days time :-)?Emilfaro
And finally i have the proof. The first version of the map that now says it's RasterB's is not created. Every other normal image says "edit this page" not "create this page". Emilfaro
I get it at last: to fake image you upload a similar copy with the inverted colours to Wikimedia Commons and then request a speedy deletion of my original image. Simple and effective. And explains, why the dates don't match... You are brilliant. My congradulations :-) Emilfaro —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
How to Fake an Image in Wikipedia
Find an image you want to fake (it must not be on Wikimedia Commons)
Upload an image you want to end up with on Wikimedia Commons (it must have the same name)
Upload a new version on Wikimedia Commons, which is actually the old one original you are faking
The image on wikipedia (original) is now going to fall the victim of speedy deletion
Now revert to the first version on Wikimedia Commons and end up with it :-)
Re this addition of a map: I think such a map can enhance the article. However, I'm doubtful about the copyright status. Also, the figure caption should probably explain the colour-coding. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This map is somewhat confusing. Is it the current circumcision *rate* or *prevalence*? Because I'm pretty sure Canada's and Australia's circ rates are below 20% now, although obviously its prevalence is higher since the rate used to be much higher.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It also conveniently says "circumcision" everywhere instead of the phrase "male circumcision" used by its source. Good job, perfect timing; keep the fraud going. Blackworm (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The source (pdf) given in the footnote from the map says "male circumcision" sometimes and "circumcision" sometimes. This article does the same. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. It says it in its title, to disambiguate, and then uses it intermittently inside the article, reminding the reader of the sex of those people being circumcised. It repeats "male circumcision" more often than circumcision with no qualifier. I recommend we do the same here, especially with regard to the title. For some reason I haven't comprehended, you oppose the proposal with your "vote," while specifying that you actually support that change but are worried about other further changes not under discussion, which could not be enacted without further discussion. Is that an accurate summary of your position? Blackworm (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm concerned about what seems to me a likely possibility that people might change a Circumcision redirect, if it existed, into a disambiguation page or short article with little or no prior discussion. To clarify: I'm not implying that anyone involved in the current discussion would do that. There is also the possibility that an article titled Circumcision would be found more easily by search engines; I'm not sure how search engines handle redirects. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
You say "no," but you effectively confirm that it is an accurate summary, since the potential subsequent change you are worried about would be impossible without consensus. You are effectively using an unrelated premise to support your sudden change of position on the move as it came to a vote. Not impressive. Similarly, putting worries about search engines over issues of neutrality and ambiguity in this encyclopedia also seems misguided. Blackworm (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not happy with the colours used on the map. I think green has positive connotations whereas red has danger connotations. Being uncircumcised isn't dangerous. Also the prevalence varies from 1/6th to a 1/3 , according to which source you use so I think it is wrong that the higher amount is used. So I'm removing it. Tremello22 (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Nijelj, red/maroon - it still signifies danger. so you needn't have bothered. Also the prevalence varies from 1/6th to a 1/3 so why should we use these particular stats?Tremello22 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I have just taken another look at the report UNAIDS/WHO FEB 2007 and it seems something has changed. I am pretty sure on page 14 of the pdf file where the map is it gave a ref for the "other sources" used to compile prevalence rates, but they has mysteriously disappeared. Now it just says "For other countries, estimates were made from other published sources" but it doesn't give what sources they were. Very strange - I remember seeing the sources at the bottom among the refs. So I vote to remove the map because the source cannot be verified. Tremello22 (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
As promised in this comment, I have revised the map to use more neutral colours. I chose blue and magenta, since as far as I'm aware these are free of connotations. I'm happy to change the colours again if a better choice of colours is suggested. Jakew (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Who says "blue" is neutral at all? The colours are a hodgepodge and ridiculous. Use a grayscale instead, darker for areas of circumcision and lighter for areas of no circumcision. Right now the colours look ready to give a seizure. Revasser (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Jakew, great work: I believe you are owed thanks for your hard work getting this map into this article. I think it should definitely read "Male Circumcision" however, especially since the source's title says Male Circumcision, and similar maps from other UN organizations also specify Male Circumcision in the captions of their figures [1], and yes, even in their Male Circumcision Prevalence Maps. This addition was JUST IN TIME to boost the image that "circumcision" without qualifier to describe male circumcision is common, normal, neutral, and has consensus -- at a time where this ambiguity is hotly disputed. Sorry, it cannot stand in its current form. It should read "Male Circumcision," as its source's title does, and as other sources paying attention to neutrality and lack of ambiguity do. Blackworm (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
No doubt footnote no.1 correctly ascribes the information on the map to the WHO but clearly the WHO is not the appropriate authority given that the UN as we all know deals with countries' self-reporting. May I point out that Malaysia and Indonesia, which are described as Muslim countries (as they officially indeed are), contain very substantial Christian, Buddhist and Hindu minorities. (See the CIA World Fact Book [2].) Moreover, many such minorities are considerably to be identified by region. North Borneo and New Guinea, for example, are very large geographical areas in Malaysia and Indonesia which only have a marginal Muslim presence; the Moluccas in Indonesia are at least 50% Christian; Bali is famously Hindu. Overall, Malaysia is some 60% Muslim and clearly does not belong in the plus-80% circumcised category as it appears on the map. But given the geographical spread of these countries and vast disparity of cultures and religions across the Indonesian Archipelago, it is surely meaningless to describe these countries in such a way. One is reminded of the generalisation in a former version of this article as to aboriginal Australians based, it seems, on certain academic studies of remote communities which did not at all constitute a valid observation as to aboriginal Australians as a whole. Masalai (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the map anymore, but I had similar concerns about it. Mainly I wasn't sure if it was showing circumcision rates currently or percentage of extant males whose status is circumcised. Because obviously rates are much lower than they were in the past in some countries and vice versa for others.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you won't have time to answer this question, but I wonder which version of the map you were looking at. More recent versions said "prevalence" in the figure caption, which I believe is meant to clarify that it's the percentage of extant males (see prevalence). I agree with you that if the map is present, the caption should clarify which quantity is being displayed. The map was removed in this edit. I support including the map if there are no copyright issues with it. I think it provides important information and significantly enhances the article. Blackworm, would you accept the inclusion of the map if the caption is edited to say "male circumcision"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
If the caption, and the legend in the image are edited to say "male circumcision" that would remove my objection on that basis. Unfortunately though, I now notice that the source used says "DRAFT DOCUMENT," which as I pointed out long ago calls into question its reliability. I'd be inclined to reject that source on that basis, especially since it seems internally inconsistent (as I describe here). A draft is a document that is a 5 c: a preliminary sketch, outline, or version <the author's first draft> <a draft treaty>.[3] I presume the document is prominently marked as such precisely to warn the reader that it hasn't been properly reviewed and published, and may contain errors (as indeed it seems to). A better source would be UNAIDS 2007 [4], which although they seem to build on the WHO's estimates and silent, unexplained extrapolation of estimates from males 15+ to all males, at least it doesn't directly source a "DRAFT DOCUMENT." The map would need to be attributed to UNAIDS, however, not the "DHS and other sources" since that is the source we reference and rest on. Otherwise, if the consensus disagrees with me and decides to keep the WHO's "DRAFT DOCUMENT" as a reliable source, then the WHO should be cited as the source, not the DHS (as we are using the WHO's interpretation of DHS data). I would also prefer, in that case, that we make clear in the caption that the source is a "DRAFT DOCUMENT," letting the reader decide on the reliability of the source. Blackworm (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Re this map: Image:Forbidden Knowledge.png which was added by Emilfaro: I think such a map can enhance the article. I don't know about copyright concerns, e.g. if it's too close a copy of a map by the WHO. Emilfaro seems to be raising some other copyright concerns: Emilfaro was the one contributing the map originally as far as I know, as mentioned in the first post in this section. Re readability: two of the colours look almost identical to me and the legend is too small to read easily. A figure caption might help. Thanks for your work in contributing this map, Emilfaro! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Emilfaro, I am not a fan of edit warring. You still have yet to address my concerns. Why are the rates in the map from highest to lowest ? In the original map (which is a direct copy except different colours) the infobox has the rates from lowest to highest. That is not my only concern - I want you to explain to me where the WHO are getting there figures from - are they reliable? They say "DHO and other sources" . I have looked at the dhs website (there doesn't seem to be a page for male circumcision figures). Then I sent an email inquiring about the male circ figures used for this report, but the lady wasn't exactly helpful and she didn't provide me with any figures. So what does that tell you? Also - why do they neglect to name these "other sources" - who are these other sources - just random people in the street, asked to guess the amount? Finally, having said all that, why should we use these particular figures for a map? Why not other figures that put the circumcision rate lower?Tremello22 (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Emilfaro, if you believe an image at Commons violates your copyright, may I suggest you first decide what you would like to be done, and then contact an administrator at Commons to help you? You might try commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard or commons:Commons:Help desk or commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Alternatively, it might work for you to edit the image page and put your name there, as apparently RasterB ought to have done. You could also state more clearly here whether you are claiming that an image violates your copyright, and ask us not to use a particular image or images for that reason. Do you also have another concern besides copyright? And are you sure your image doesn't violate the WHO's copyright? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. But the point is I don't hold any copyright as I gave it away for anyone to do anything he wants with the image... Funny :-) The sad point is: there is someone, who can modify the Wikipedia archives. Emilfaro —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what words exactly you used when you gave it away, but even if that means that you can't use the force of law to demand attribution, I see no reason why you can't ask for attribution as a courtesy, and I see no reason why Wikipedia wouldn't respect that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that doesn't bring us to the real thing we need: the map on the page. Emilfaro
I introduced the first version of the map in this edit dated 21st. My original map was later somehow replaced with another one with inverted colors. Now it appears as if this image was created by RasterB on 23rd. How could I add image that didn't exist for two days? Later Jakew in this edit changed the image to grayscale version. And now I accidentally find out all this and make the indigo version. None of colors are recognised as neutral thus consensus is not possible at all. The map is being intentionally removed. I beg everyone who can to get out the word on this situation. Keep in mind that it is the one and only map on the subject. There is no alternative that I know of. This subject is very political. Emilfaro —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what truth you are trying to show here but you must follow the rules and policies of Wikipedia. Specifically WP:Consensus is being ignored by you at the moment. All this is going to do is get you blocked. If you wish to pursue this either gain consensus here on talk or follow WP:Dispute resolution procedures. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think a map of circumcision rates can enhance the article, but I see the following problems with this particular map:
The colours are too similar to each other, so it's hard to interpret the map.
The legend is too small and is not readable.
Per Blackworm, it should say "male circumcision" (if that's what it is), not just "circumcision", to avoid ambiguity.
I'm not convinced that this map doesn't violate the WHO's copyright.
The name of the file is not NPOV but is WP:SOAPBOXy.
The figure caption or image description file do not state clearly where the data is from. Although there is a link to a WHO document, it doesn't say why the link is there: the link could be marked "Reference" or "Data has been obtained from" or something to clarify this; it would be good to give complete citation information, not just the web link, since the web link might stop working at some point.
The figure caption should state where the data are from, in such a way as to give the reader some idea of the accuracy of the data.
The figure caption "Colour: neutral" seems meaningless to me. (Sorry.)
Please don't re-add the map before addressing these concerns.
Re your question, Emilfaro, about modifying Wikipedia's archives: I don't know what you're talking about: I don't think you've given enough detail for anyone to know what you mean. Apparently the image you originally uploaded to English Wikipedia was deleted on the grounds that a similar image (apparently based on it) existed at Commons. You said you had given away the rights to the map, so there's no basis for a complaint; and if you have a complaint or request then this page is probably not the place to take it up. I suggested some places at Commons where you could pursue the matter. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine job. I would never find the log myself. But look carefully. My image is said to be deleted on the 26th: 08:35, 26 June 2008 Gonzo fan2007 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Circumcision by Country.png" (I8: Image exists on Commons). But then RasterB image with the same name appeared on the 23rd:10:19, 23 June 2008. It is simply not possible :-) Emilfaro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.37.131.241 (talk)
I notice that my concerns about the reliability of these figures were ignored. To be expected I guess. Also the legend when you click on the map is poor. It says "circumcision by country". Considering that female circumcison is common in africa then I think in this case it should read "Male circumcision prevalence" and then it should cite the source - "according to DHO" or something like that. Otherwise it is absolutely pointless. In my opinion it doesn't enhance the article in any way. Tremello22 (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Tremello22, I apologize for not paying more attention to your thoughtful, encyclopedic comments. We need editors who pay attention to these details of accuracy. There is a source given: the WHO document, which itself lists references, though I haven't had time to sort them out. I didn't understand what you said about 1/3 and 1/6: could you explain it? Maybe I don't know the background or context for what you're saying. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes my problem was that the WHO document is a secondary source - it says its sources for producing the map were "DHS and other sources" which doesn't fill me with confidence. The 1/3 and the 1/6 are the estimated prevalence of circumcision according to the "prevalence of circumcison" section of the article. The estimate that a 1/6 of the population is circumcised is from the william and kapla study. So my problem was: why should we use the "1/3" figure to produce a map when there is a question over its reliability. On this basis, I wouldn't add the map as an unreliable map isn't enhancing the article - which should rely on accuracy, above all else.Tremello22 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. It might be a good idea to add "approximate" or "estimated" or "estimated by..." (WHO? DHS?) to the figure caption. However, I think the WHO estimates seem more reliable than the 1993 Williams and Kapila study; the former, from a reputable organization, describes how the estimates were arrived at and lists references; the latter merely states in passing the one-sixth figure without saying, (as far as I can see), where it came from, and seems to be a study about complications etc., without (I think) a section discussing circumcision rates. WP:MEDRS suggests that secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. So I think it's OK to use the map based on the WHO data. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This map is based on WHO data. This is the fifth edition. And it is designed to be absolutely newtral by expressing both viewpoints. Here are the first, the second, the third, and the fourth versions of the map that are considered not to be neutral. And thus censored.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The editorial comments about censorship, etc. in the image are unencyclopedic and do not belong in the article. Having a dual image is not the solution either. Please work out all issues here before restoring the the map. may I suggest using patterns instead of colors if anyone is particularly disturbed by the choices? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Some neutral colour choices were also suggested here. As I understand it, it those are used, and the image caption references "prevalence of male circumcision" and the source (UNAIDS), I don't see any remaining objections from anyone. Blackworm (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Map
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Here's the neutral map I added using WHO figures. Was it really that difficult to add a map with neutral colours??? Signsolid (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Circumcision rates around the world. Pale blue 0%-20%, medium blue 20%-80%, Dark blue 80%-100%
Beautiful colours, even mildly suggestive of the United Nations which may be entirely appropriate. Perhaps even a UN flag could be added. That would make the source clear at a glance. It lacks the required "no data" regions, however, and a colour legend. Who knows though, someone might again object that the areas in Africa are darker. I don't support that, but others can decide for themselves and chime in. Good work, seems close to a consensus and therefore a resolution to this somewhat heated conflict. (How many times has it been reverted? 10? It's odd that no one locked this article for "editwarring," but I applaud that, we're getting closer to a solution rather than arguing about whether a debate exists.) Blackworm (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "circumcision rate" seems ambiguous, leaning toward incidence of new circumcisions rather than prevalence, which is what the WHO is estimating. How about: Percentage of males over 15 who have been circumcised, according to United Nations (WHO/UNAIDS) estimates. (Pale blue, 0%-20%; medium blue, 20%-80%; dark blue, 80%-100%.) Still have to fix the "no data" regions, but otherwise that would seem to be a fine addition to the article. Blackworm (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
As an agnostic as to the pros and cons of circumcision, the colour debate is considerably irrelevant to me (green could be for Islam; red could be for liberal -- at least outside the USA where Republicans and Democrats latterly reverse the traditional red/blue identities -- whatever one's take on whether it is more liberal or conservative to be pro- or con- as to circumcision). The thing that bothers me about the map is the provenance of the statistics that inform it. As I previously mentioned, they are considerably open to question as to several of the countries that are on the map to have this or that incidence. Perhaps the discussion could move on from the significance of assorted colours to the surely more important question of where the statistics come from and what geographical areas they accurately refer to. Masalai (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Presumably the source would be cited in the caption, satisfying WP:V. There may be an WP:NPOV argument to be made, as giving the source's data as a map gives it a lot of weight. By the way, I found this interesting document; it says: PRELIMINARY DRAFT – PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE. I'm not citing for anything other than to make this point: it seems like draft documents aren't to be cited, and I seem to remember that one of the sources cited in these articles, and perhaps even for this map, is labeled "DRAFT DOCUMENT." In that light, doesn't it seem odd that we would cite such a document here? Blackworm (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Image regarding circumcision rates worldwide
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Recently User:Signsolid removed an image he had supplied (under the GFDL) and, when reverted, replaced it with another. It was again reverted, and then removed by a third party and now there is no image pending discussion. Since an image is not owned once it is licensed the provider cannot remove it on any grounds other than suitability, therefore it should be decided which is the best image for use in the article;
Circumcision rates by country. Pale blue 0%-20%, medium blue 20%-80%, Dark blue 80%-100%
or
Circumcision rates by country
Please note that either image may be manipulated under the terms of the GDFL, so it isn't a simple matter of colour preference or size. I throw this open to various opinions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Or neither, since neither properly addressed the concerns raised in this discussion above (the "no data" region around Kashmir is relevant for image 2, and the caption has issues, and image 2's legend needs to say "male circumcision" per the source). Blackworm (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Circumcision by Country
Latest comment: 16 years ago33 comments6 people in discussion
This page got too big and I say it is done on purpose. Why? Because this page is 35th (hubpages.com/hub/Top-100-Viewed-Wikipedia-Pages) most popular on Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is 8th most popular site. Giving this article audience of 200'000 people.
So why is the prevalence map banned? Several things.
First circumcision stops decease. They don't want you to know that.
Second USA and Israel have something too much in common with Arabs, with Muslims. And they don't want you even think about that.
Here I'll just list banned variants and welcome others to do so.
Wild claims of censorship, conspiracy theories spamming images, and editwarring your image into the article rather than fixing the problems raised will get you nowhere. The objections are minor and fixable. If you feel that strongly about the map, do the work. Also, please try to contain discussion of this in ONE talk section. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Emilfaro, I didn't really edit your comment, I removed your new section heading since there were already TWO top-level sections devoted to this map on this page. Sorry if that upset you, but spam upsets me.
Gary, banning or blocking Emilfaro would just feed his "censorship" cries, as well as absolve him from the work of actually gaining consensus for his change. I don't support that. Blackworm (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm with you Emilfaro there's nothing wrong with your map. Pro-circumcision US editors don't want the world to see that only the US, Israel, and Islamic world circumcise rountinely because the map shows most areas of the world and most of its population like China and India just don't circumcise. Signsolid (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Emilfaro seems to be arguing the opposite of Signsolid, specifically that anti-circumcision editors are blocking the map ("First circumcision stops decease. They don't want you to know that."), thus seeming to make both your POV-related claims highly dubious, and the "consensus" between yourselves bewildering. Why not stop the pro- and anti- talk for two seconds and actually read what the editors opposing the map are saying about it? Let me summarize what I think of this map:
It lacks the correct "no data" areas, as noted above and you both seem to have ignored. Don't forget the one in Kashmir (India/Pakistan).
It quotes the wrong source, when a better source cite, for example, would be this.
The caption isn't appropriate. I suggest this caption: Map showing percentage of males who have been circumcised at a country level, according to estimates published by the United Nations (WHO/UNAIDS).
Okay, it's not quite the same file, as I had to search for the map when I went there, but I'm fine with that. The source quoted in the map should maybe also have a link to it at the end of the caption, but I can do that. Also maybe the "no data" colour could be even lighter (full white, or a pattern?), as I find it hard to distinguish between it and 0-20%. But again, I won't complain too much about that. The only thing left (and I'm sorry):
...is that the location of Kashmir seems wrong. If you compare the two maps, it looks like you grayed out parts of China instead and left Kashmir the same colour as India.
...And I really feel lousy at not being able to help you do this myself. I don't like appearing like I'm sitting back and barking orders, and please don't take my words that way. I really appreciate the job you're doing. Blackworm (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have corrected Kashmir for you. There are parts located in China as well. If you ever want to color a map it is very simple: you have to go to Wikipedia:Blank_maps and use MS Paint. Then go to Commons and that's about it. We can work out the details of the map later. If we have the consensus, please, add the map to the page :-) Emilfaro (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It follows very logical sequence now, by the way 70,70,70; 120,120,120; 170,170,170 and 220,220,220. So the step is 50. Can't be better. And you cant make me do this again --- very boring to change from grey to grey... Emilfaro (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we don't need to worry about violating the WHO's copyright, because just to be sure I asked here, and Commons administrator WilyD said "Data is not copyrightable. The map projection is different, the colour-scheme is different - there's no apparent problem."☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm no lawyer, but the reason I say it's a copy, is because the "data" it reflects seems to actually be the WHO map. At best, the source of the data isn't clear. If I mistaken on this point, please point me to the WHO table where all the countries are categorized as in the WHO map -- because it isn't on the page that our new map points to as a source. I shouldn't have to dig for the data, and in fact, now that I think of it, the source cite (link) should indeed point directly to it.
If no such table exists at the source site, then we must conclude that the WHO map itself is the source data. But the map is copyrighted. If "the map is the data," and "data is not copyrightable," and "the map is copyrighted," we seem to have a contradiction. A better explanation is that the WHO map is an interpretation of the non-copyrighted WHO data as interpretations are copyrightable, to my understanding. Blackworm (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Or I guess one could argue that the non-copyrighted WHO data is implied by the WHO map. That makes sense, and all that would be needed would be a link directly to the WHO map in that case. Blackworm (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not crazy BTW about having the estimates of male circumcision prevalence published by male circumcision advocates displayed so prominently, and I could see someone raising undue weight issues, but they are a major source of information and if it's properly attributed to those advocates then there's no problem, I guess. Blackworm (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
If someone looks at what colour each country is in the WHO map and uses that information to decide how to colour another map, I think that's OK. If someone copies the shapes of the coastlines etc. from the WHO map, I guess that's probably a copyright violation, even if they apply a transformation to it to make it into a different map projection. I'm assuming it's the former; anyway, I figure that by asking at Commons like that enough has been done. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Grayscale by Jakew
Beige by Pythian Habenero
Blue by Signsolid
Two-Map by me again
