All maps showing human geographic boundaries are political. is that supposed to be a good reason to publish the latest controversial US political POV in an encyclopedia?

Updating the map to reflect updates make more sense then leaving an outdated version what (other than the US political POV) needs updating and what part of the other map is "outdated" (whatever that means)?

The CIA world fact book is generally considered a reliable primary source sources are reliable in context. How can the new CIA map be considered as reliable when it's inaccurate, controversial and at odds with every RS out there (a whole country is missing from it because of a unilateral decision of a passing US president)? If anything, having such fringe POV anywhere in our encyclopedia would be a gross violation of our non negotiable NPOV policy. M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The United States diplomatic perspective is not a "fringe" point of view. All maps are political, we will have to use some set of decided upon borders for this. Accuracy of political maps are relative. The previous map being replaced used the 2015 CIA world factbook as its source. The updated map uses the 2023 CIA world factbook as its source. Stating that the older CIA world factbook edition is better then the current one is a matter of opinion, but if we are using the CIA world factbook, we should use the most up to date ones. The opinions of others on what is accurate does not matter unless they are the source for the boundaries. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton It would help others if you actually stated what problems you believe there are with the map, rather than hinting at it. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't hint at it. I did mention that a country (Western Sahara, a founding member of the African Union) is missing. I also mentioned the NPOV policy (I assume that most readers are aware of what it means). M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both maps use the CIA World Factbook as their source. The source has been updated. You disagree with the US political decision, which is fine, but to continue using a less updated version of the same dataset because of that disagreement is not a neutral POV. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the first is a derivative of a map that is in the public domain. I already explained what the issue is. Do you have anything to say about the policy that I mentioned? M.Bitton (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both maps take sides in some territorial disputes, and to some extent it's impossible to not do so generally. The best solution would be to make a map that shows both the de facto and claimed borders, right? Similar to what the CIA map does in Kashmir and the Koreas. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what this discussion is about, because I have to choose, then I'd go with the map of the UN and call it a day. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The UN doesn't recognize Western Sahara either, it calls it a "non-self governing territory." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a good reason to remove it altogether from the map? I don't think so. In any case, we're not calling it anything. In fact, the map of the UN makes even more sense than before. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, the opinions of editors on what should or should not be included on a map are not important. You can argue that you think the UN opinion of what should be on a map is better for a variety of reasons, but it will still be disputed. The United States has an opinion, China has an opinion, Russia has an opinion, India has an opinion, etc.. We have to choose one of those authoritative opinions to go with, not cherry pick them to fit our world view of what should be on a map.

Ultimately, we should probably just note the source of the map data in the image caption. Just state "Political map of Earth based on ____________." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, the NPOV policy is non negotiable. So far, you have yet to offer a single valid reason as to why we should promote a fringe POV. M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You want to keep an updated map, over the updated one, because you disagree with the decisions of the policy makers. You did not have a problem using the CIA world factbook until it said something you didn't agree with. I agree the source should be cited within the map better, and if we want to change the source of the map to something else that can be discussed. Not updating the map though, as you suggested, because we dislike the new data is taking an internal stance on the issue that is not neutral. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have a problem using a map that doesn't grossly violate the NPOV policy. Neutrality (in Wikipedia) doesn't mean what you think it means. Also, please don't ever compare the UN (an intergovernmental organization) to a country. M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

"The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source."

"A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether."

From an essay titled "Wikipedia:Conflicting sources"

"Prefer up-to-date sources. In the case of a conflict stemming from the fact that the general or academic consensus about the subject has changed over time, the current consensus should be given preference. Older works, if referenced at all, should then be clearly distinguished as such and be used primarily to show the historical development of the subject. Be aware that sometimes older works are re-published with very minor changes, which can make their statements seem newer than they really are."

Not using the up-to-date source because of your opinion on the decision maker who caused it to be updated is not Neutral. The opinion of the United States federal government is not exactly "fringe." It does not matter if it was the Trump administration who made the change or not, the source says what it says. The image caption should state where the data are from, but not using the most updated data because you disagree with the decision is not neutral, and rather then replace a map with one from a source you consider "better," you have reverted the updated one multiple times in favor of one that is no longer up to date. Your approach does not seem very neutral. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's that got to do with the fact that you're trying to promote a fringe POV?

The opinion of the United States federal government is not exactly "fringe in this instance, it most certainly is.

Did you miss the part that says: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."? M.Bitton (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to pick one country's point-of-view to make a map. Who has territorial control over areas, and what those claims are, isn't really in dispute. No one disputes that POLISARIO claims Western Sahara, nor that Morocco claims it, nor that Morocco has ~80% territorial control. The NPOV option would be to display all of this information, not to use one partisan perspective or another. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV option would be to display it as it is (with no mention of claims, occupation, etc., unless the article is about it). M.Bitton (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton I'd like to offer an opinion, and help stop the edit warring, but I wasn't willing to play spot the difference to find which country. It all rather depends on who recognises it as a country. Could you expand on that? Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

84 countries have recognized it as a country, the others either have no clear position on it or consider it as a non-self-governing territory, while the US (since the Trump administration turned the US foreign policy on its head) is at odds with the rest of the world. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the difference even after knowing it was supposed to be Morocco/Western Sahara, the resolution is too low to see much of anything without zooming in. Anyway: I agree that that it doesn't make sense to use an older version of CIA's map when a newer one is available. I also agree that an United Nations map, if the UN maintains such a map, would be better since it's an intergovernmental agency. In any case, the caption should certainly and clearly include the source of the map, something like "Political map of the world according to the UN". TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an older version, it's a derivative that is kept up to date. For example, in the new political map, the political capital of Burundi is wrong (that's just one example). Why have a controversial and fringe map (that violates the NPOV policy) in the first place, when we have one that has been stable for years (like world maps are supposed to be, until a new country is created or disappears)? M.Bitton (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the map is not reflective of the most up to date version of its underlying dataset, then it is not accurate. Throw in that all maps figure captions should probably also have the date the data was created, in addition to the data source.

I have to change my county and census tract feature classes whenever the US government updates them. If the map is based on data published by the government, the borders are part of that data. Not doing so is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research regarding "Synthesis of published material." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a scholar publishes a good map, we either use it or one of its derivatives (as we did in this case). If the same scholar publishes an asinine map that he describes as an update, then it makes no sense whatsoever for us to use it (under the pretext that it's an update), especially if it violates one of our core policies (as in this case). Does that make sense?

Let me also re-quote the part of the policy that you missed previously: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity". M.Bitton (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The United States federal governments official view on international politics is not a "fringe theory." Saying a map is based on that is not an extraordinary claim. "Minority view" is not really applicable to the opinions of a super power and member of the UN security council. The views of these countries can be disputed, but they are not quite the same as a minority view in an academic context. Your view is that the data published by the US CIA World Factbook was less "asinine" in 2015 then it is today, but where the lines are drawn has always been contentious. The CIA World Factbook is one of the best sources for global statistics internationally, and is a primary source used by mainstream scholarship. It is perfectly acceptable as a source as long as it is properly attributed. All boundaries must align with the data as they publish it, however, or we are making a synthesis of published material. Like all sources, a more current one is better then an older one. Your opinion on the current one does not mean that an established source of data that represents the view of the third most populous country, that has a massive impact on global politics and culture, is suddenly a "minority view, or fringe theory." Your justification not to use a more up to date set of boundary files is not a neutral opinion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The United States federal governments official view on international politics is not a "fringe theory." given the context, that's just plain wrong! In this instance, it most certainly is. In fact, stating such a thing after my reply to Escape Orbit, proves that you're not even reading what I'm writing. M.Bitton (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no wrong opinions in territorial disputes, only ones that can be enforced and agreed upon by others. The US opinion is one that is heavily considered by other countries when making their own. The United States is a Superpower, which "are states so influential that no significant action can be taken by the global community without first considering the positions of the superpowers on the issue." The opinions of the US government in international politics are not "fringe." I read what you wrote, it doesn't change the US opinion, just that you think it was a better opinion in the past so we should not update maps to reflect changes to it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are fringe ones, such as the one that you are trying to promote by making baseless claims. What the US stands for is irrelevant to the fact that its view on WS is super fringe. That's an undisputed fact! M.Bitton (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to promote an opinion. I'm trying to advocate for using up to date sources, while stating that the source in question is widely used, and that the opinion of the US on international borders is not a "Fringe" opinion in the same way that the opinion of pseudoscientist questioning relativity is fringe. You are free to disagree with the US opinion on a topic, but not updating a map based on that opinion because of your disagreement is not neutral. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to promote a super fringe view that violates one of our core policies.

the opinion of the US on international borders is not a "Fringe" opinion It most certainly is in this case, and since I'm tired of repeating the obvious, I will leave you with some articles[5][6][7][8][9] with the hope that they may help you to understand how fringe the support of illegality is (worldwide and in the US itself). M.Bitton (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA World Factbook says what it says. What it says can change. There is always dispute about borders, and I absolutely guarantee you that there is not a single map you can give me of the world where I can not give you a list of articles describing problems. This means we cite our sources, it does not mean we don't publish maps. Your opinion, and the opinions of others, do not change what the source says, do not make the official opinion of the US "fringe," and are not a reason to use out dated maps when using the US as a source for data. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think GeogSage has it mostly right here. The article should clearly have one widely published and recognised source's map, rather than having editors maintain derivative maps and deciding which countries' claims should be recognised on case by case basis. We aren't dealing with a scholar producing an asinine update here, but an institution as a whole changing its stance. If the current position is fringe, was CIA World Factbook's position in 2015 any less fringe? I'm sure several, maybe even most, countries and sources disagreed with many of their positions even then. Anyway, if there's a UN world map, let's have that, it would probably be an improvement over the CIA or "CIA map modified with Wikipedia editor discretion on which countries are legitimate". TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The widely published maps look similar to the current one (they all show Western Sahara). The only changes that were made in the derivative are the cosmetic and small changes such as city names, there was no changes to countries and what they claim.

was CIA World Factbook's position in 2015 any less fringe? yes, absolutely, and while (as you rightly said), there were some countries and sources that disagreed with many of their positions even then, it still wasn't as bad as the recent one (that literally removed a country).

I agree with you regarding the UN map: the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that it's the best way forward. M.Bitton (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA World Factbook says what it says. the recent one is saying nonsense by pretending that an entire country ceased to exist (while contradicting what it said for decades).

What it says can change sure, but facts don't change because it says so.

Your opinion, and the opinions of others, do not change what the source says we don't change the sources that promote falsehoods, we just ignore them.

do not make the official opinion of the US "fringe" they made their own opinion fringe. That's an undisputed fact (if you don't want to read all the sources, just read the first one in the list).

For the last time (this is getting tiring), the current map is a derivative of a map that is in the public domain (which just so happens to be the 2016 CIA map). While updating things like city names and making some cosmetic changes is fine, there is no reason whatsoever to "update" it with the recent US fringe POV. M.Bitton (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion would make greater progress if you drop the WP:NPOV argument and the "falsehoods" argument. Every map is the opinion, to a greater or lesser extent, of its publisher. Whether that opinion is false or not is an opinion in itself. What we have here is a discussion about which map is the most appropriate for this article. Since this article is Geography and not List of Countries, I don't think use of any particular map is overly expressing any opinion about the existence of any country. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the maps will always change, and opinions may vary wildly, we could find a historic map of human geography. For example, if this is going to be a huge problem, we could use one of the many existing copies of Ptolemy's maps.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GeogSage Or remove the political map and replace it with something else entirely. Does the article need to lead with two quite similar maps of the world? Geography is much more than maps. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a geographer who focuses largely on cartography, that hurts to read. You are right though, I might even recommend moving the maps to the "human geography" and "physical geography" sections. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should consider replacing the two maps of the world we have in the first section of the page. I would like something that is somewhat simple and not overwhelmingly detailed. Maybe we could include a satellite image of the world map or one with political borders, maybe not with all the details the current maps do. I'm currently trying to find a good quality world map that is compatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements that would be of good use to this article's page and maybe one with political borders on the Country page. Interstellarity (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Making a map is easy, but why do you want to replace the current ones? Is there anything wrong with them? M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As above, making a map is easy enough. If we really need one, I could make us a fairly nice one using data I have right now. I don't really think the existing maps are a problem though. We could likely drop the political map, as the physical one does have a country borders layer and city layer. I've gone ahead and deleted that one to reduce clutter as I think everything we want to convey is captured in one, and changed the caption. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I’m dropping in to offer the requested third party opinion. In my opinion, the 2024 map from the same source should be used until there is a consensus to change it. I’m not offering any opinion on the merits of the argument to change it at this time. In my opinion, the editors who take issue with the publisher’s neutrality have the onus to develop support for switching to a new source. Ideally this is accomplished on here in talk in a new, fresh section with a “moved from” link to this one. If a consensus can’t be achieved in a few days, I’d recommend the editor seeking the change open an RfC. Thanks so much to all of you for your commitment to improving Wikipedia. Dw31415 (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I think this essay is helpful: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Dw31415 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about this map here? It is fairly recent from 2023. I don't think it's a perfect map, but I feel it is manageable. If there are any issues with the map, we can possibly create a derivative file from the map that can solve any issues the more recent map gives. What do you think? Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current map is a derivative of the CIA map and a more accurate one than the one that you're suggesting (it was last updated in 2024, but if there are issues with it, feel free to point them out). In any case, your comment is at odds with your something that is somewhat simple and not overwhelmingly detailed suggestion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The map you're suggesting from 2023 is missing the "Western Sahara" at a glance. The 2024 one we use now is using the same source as your 2023 one, but makes at least that change. Regardless of opinions on this, if the source for 2023 was legitimate then, and has changed the borders, we should use the updated map. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already had this discussion. We're not using the same map, we're using a derivative that is more accurate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just changed it. We discussed this, you unilaterally made that decision that the older one is more "accurate." That is your opinion, please refrain from POV pushing. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change. Since you want to inject US politics into geography, then you will respect NPOV. If you disagree, then we remove the map that has borders or replace it with the UN's (as suggested in the previous discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your POV pushing. Multiple people in the discussion from last year stated that the newer source was better. This is both against that rough consensus, and against policy. You're soapboxing about your disagreement with boundaries. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they suggested replacing it with the UN map. M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a third opinion request in what the best image on the world map would be. Hopefully, they can provide some input on which one is best. Interstellarity (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that didn't happen. No one agreed to the outdated one. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You edit warred to push your POV while calling me a pov pusher. How dare you?

In any case, I will create a map that is based on the UN's map (as suggested previously) and will replace the current one. M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to ArcGIS or other mapping software? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking? M.Bitton (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you're going to "create a map" for a high profile page, you should probably have professional tools to do it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been creating maps for a long time, so don't you worry about anything. M.Bitton (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Any body can publish any kind of a map, however bad, and get away with it. Ordinarily a field is subject to the law of natural selection-the things that are bad or inadequate fail to survive. But in cartography this law does not operate effectively because the ability to discriminate among maps is not widespread in this country." -Richard Edes Harrison, "Cartography in Art and Advertising," The Professional Geographer, II, No. 6. I'm very worried about bad cartography. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that supposed to explain why you replaced an accurate map with an inaccurate one? M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "inaccurate," it is a superpowers official stance on where global boundaries are. Borders are not "accurate," they are arbitrary lines drawn by humans on a map. There isn't an authoritative set of borders for the whole world that everyone agrees on. As long as the source is cited, the map is an accurate portrayal of the borders. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. This is obviously your stance, i.e., a superpower decides all by itself that a country no longer exists (you do realize that superpowers cannot change facts?). So if tomorrow Trump decides that part of Ukraine is Russian and the CIA changes its maps to follow, then according to you, we should follow suit because the president of a superpower says so. M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the source updates, we should change our map to reflect its most current version. Failing that, we could find a different source. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to tell you that the map that you removed is a derivative and a more accurate one that the one it's based on? M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was place there because, for some reason, you insist on adding a map that has a whole country missing. M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insisting on anything but the most up to date source. The World Factbook is not a fringe source, as long as it is cited, I fail to see the problem. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to tell you that the map that you removed is a derivative and a more accurate one that the one it's based on? M.Bitton (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the map I removed is not the most current data reflected by the source. Insisting on the derivative is pushing a POV different from the source. The point of view issue is resolved by removing the out dated map. This was discussed above, the derivate map is not appropriate and the only one with a POV problem is you. A UN Map could be appropriate as well, but failing that we should use the most updated one. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: how many times do I have to tell you that the map that you removed is a derivative and a more accurate one that the one it's based on? M.Bitton (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it includes Western Sahara, then it is not more accurate based on the most updated version of the source. You are insisting on using an outdated dataset because you disagree with it, doing so is not neutral and doing so intentionally is making a statement. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to tell you that the map that you removed is a derivative and a more accurate one that the one it's based on?

POV problem it's an accuracy problem. Your persistent evasion of the issue and the refusal to give a valid reason for publishing something that is factually incorrect is something that I cannot comprehend. M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The derivative is using an outdated source. The new map is based on the updated one. Your disagreement with a source does not make it factually incorrect, as borders are not objective things but subjective to the interpretations of those drawing the line. This argument can be made about ANY map. As is pointed out in How to Lie with Maps, "Not only is it easy to lie with maps, it is essential. To portray meaningful relationships for a complex, three-dimensional world on a flat sheet of paper or screen, a map must distort reality." I have posted this to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives don't even have to stick to a particular source (I suggest you read the Images policy and guideline).

You are yet to even try to give a valid reason for publishing something that is factually incorrect. M.Bitton (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't factually incorrect, you just don't like it. Your POV does not mean we should use outdated boundaries when the source has been updated. Changing the boundaries of a map to suite your world view would be considered original research in my opinion. Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles, "Similar to other types of sources, maps should not be self-published sources, and the reliability of the publisher should be considered before use. Maps directly derived from government surveys, GIS data and aerial or satellite images are generally reliable. Maps made by commercial interests for promotion of business may not be reliable. Online maps should be treated the same as web sources, listing both the date the cartography was completed (if known) and the date the information was accessed, as online content can frequently change" A derivative seems to be a self published source. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it with your uncalled for aspersions. It's factually incorrect (this is a fact). In any case, to avoid needlessly repeating myself, I started working on a map that is based on the UN's. M.Bitton (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something isn't factually incorrect just because you declare it. The UN map can be just as easily disputed as the CIA World Factbook by any editor with an agenda. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that Western Sahara doesn't exist, then there is nothing I can do to help you.

As for your continued aspersions, you will get the template that you deserve and if you continue, you will take a trip to ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your template referring to, exactly? States are not concrete things, they come and go throughout history. You really seem to be trying to intimidate me with template messages and accusations. Is disagreeing with you a personal attack? Please clearly indicate what you believe to be the personal attack. Accusations of misconduct made without evidence are considered a serious personal attack, and a form of Wikipedia:WikiBullying. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read your previous comments and if you still don't see what I'm referring to, then ANI is that way.

Anyway, there is no point in continuing this discussion here now that you started one on NPON. M.Bitton (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're referring to. Please specify, as such accusations made without evidence are a serious personal attack. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so when this goes to ANI (which it will if you continue to cast aspersions). M.Bitton (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What aspirations am I casting exactly? Accusations of misconduct made without evidence are considered a serious personal attack, and a form of Wikipedia:WikiBullying. I'm asking you for evidence so I can directly address your accusations. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@InterstellarityI have gone through this talk page and looked at the update history, and honestly thought this was resolved last February with either your previous map or the UN map. Saw the change pop up, and at first figured this was something going on with the new map and a different user, not the same map everyone agreed should be replaced by something a year ago. I was pretty busy with IRL stuff at that time, but am surprised that it wasn't resolved and is back again on the talk page. Pardon the initial reaction, this should have been fixed a long time ago. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GeogSage I hope we can come to a resolution to try to fix this. I didn't expect the discussion to become so heated on this issue. Hopefully, we can work things out here. Maybe a solution another editor pointed out on the NPOVN would try to fix this dispute. Interstellarity (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a topic that needs to be addressed. The state of cartography on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is an unmitigated disaster in my professional opinion. We have no standards, and I can point to several maps that violate basic cartographic principals. Sourcing and updating boundary files is something that needs to be done periodically, like changing your oil. If a source for boundaries is considered good, we should apply updates as they are published. The world factbook and U.S. state department boundaries have widespread use on Wikipedia, so seem to be considered an acceptable source. Not using the most current version because we don't like it is not neutral, and needs to be fixed somehow. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my capacity as an editor, I'd say that our policies are there for a reason: "neutral" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia. M.Bitton (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough bickering and casting aspersions in these discussions about maps. I recommend returning to an earlier consensus decision or starting a new RFC to determine which map is currently appropriate. The subject of which map to use in an article can become political and should not be the decision of an individual editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz: the discussion has moved to WP:RFN. M.Bitton (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have restored the two images that were the longstanding version of the article before this current dispute, as is the standard process for contentious changes. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We need to find something to replace those with, as the general consensus is against the current maps, we just don't know what to swap in yet. At this point, we probably need to just delete them from the page and everywhere they appear in the project until we have a map that can get some sort of consensus, although I don't know if one actually exists. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're in no position to decide what the consensus regarding is (regarding this article), much less suggest the deletion (from the project) of the maps that you don't agree with (for reasons that have no basis in policies). Please concentrate on the discussion that you started on WP:RFN. M.Bitton (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In the discussions, I don't see anyone saying we should keep the existing maps, but several saying UN boundaries, historically significant maps, etc. Last year, we had the same problem but no one ever changed it, so we were left with the two sets of user generated boundaries selectively derived from the 2016 and the 2021 CIA World Factbook. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Let the discussion (that you started) run its course. The rest of your opinion (that you repeated ad nauseam) has been noted and rightfully ignored. M.Bitton (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd prefer if you struck through what you said rather then trying to reword it to show, publicly, that you withdraw that part of the comment. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Procedural decline. There are currently more than two involved editors. If you are unable to reach a consensus, you are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One physical map, one political map. I'm not seeing anything wrong with this. _pbp 20:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as perfectly reasonable as well. The juxtaposition itself would be illustrative for readers. Remsense ‥ 论 20:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is what we have now, and while I thought that a physical map with the borders would be easier and let us use just one, the real issue is determining which borders to use. This discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, and more recently Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this draft may change as part of the pre-opening discussion. This RfC based on based on discussion at NPOV notice board

Should recent, US-government published maps be included on this and similar pages and why?

• A: Yes. Please add any conditions required.
• B: Yes, but only those prior to 2016 or other threshold^[10].
• C: No. Please state why and what sources are preferable
• D: Avoid government published maps (US or otherwise)
• E: Other, including derivative maps

Dw31415 (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC). Updated Dw31415 (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: It looks like the UN map omits both Taiwan and Palestine, despite having labels for U.S. territories like Guam. That is quite the cartographic decision, and we might note that as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure citizens of Kosovo will also be very understanding that we simply couldn't show their country if it meant omitting Western Sahara. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GeogSage, @Samuelshraga, thanks for mentioning those. I included in a note about the UN map. Dw31415 (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs are supposed to be neutrally worded (the details should be kept in the discussion) and simple (the more choices you present, the more difficult they become to close and the less likely we will reach any kind of consensus). As an aside, the note about the Taiwan and Palestine is not accurate (one more reason to avoid adding notes). I'm too tired right now, but tomorrow I will upload an SVG version of it as well its derivative (a physical map that was mentioned in the previous discussions).

As for consensus applying to other similar articles, I don't see how that's possible if the RfC is held on this one and not a centralised location such as RFN. It's worth checking what the editors at RFN think. M.Bitton (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: To clarify, when I say "It looks like the UN map omits both Taiwan and Palestine," I'm specifically referring to is the one in this talk section captioned "UN 2020 World Map SVG". GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need to step away for 24 hours, probably 48. I'm not confident enough in the topic or in where this should appear to put this over the line and open the RfC. I welcome any here to do so. No pride of ownership from me. I hope I've advanced things a little. Apologies for any false expectations. Dw31415 (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rush. Stepping away from it for 48 hours won't change anything and is probably a good thing to do for everyone involved. M.Bitton (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any pre-opening comments / requests? Dw31415 (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dw31415: that will depend on where you intend of starting it (here or at the NPOV board). M.Bitton (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking here as I think the NPOV talk page is for discussing NPOV itself. Dw31415 (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

… note that the NPOV notice will include a link here. Dw31415 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here is mainly about two maps, while the one at the board is more broad. I suggest you start it there and add a link to it here. M.Bitton (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the Notice board is that it is a request for admin action. I expect that admins would find it helpful for the question to proceed through dispute resolution (including this RfC on a Talk page), but interested to hear what others think. Dw31415 (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly drop US, and say "Individual Government" or something to that effect. While the US state department map may be making some controversy, the official maps produced by China, Russia, the UK, and France (the other Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council) would cause the same (if not more) controversy. Citing the source is the way this is usually resolved, but if that isn't good enough for the U.S., then we will have to decide which ones are good enough. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole discussion is about the US, so it makes no sense to drop the core issue or discuss a problem that doesn't exist (we don't use maps that are produced by China, Russia, or any other country). M.Bitton (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more border disputes then Western Sahara. To find a replacement for the current map that doesn't lead to constant pushes for one world view over another, we will need to find a map that is adequately addresses them all. The 9 dash line, Russia's map of Ukraine, the Falkland Islands, and Kashmir are all areas we need to juggle. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to repeat what has been discussed or drown the issue with an all or nothing approach (that will lead nowhere). M.Bitton (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the option A, I’ll include other governments.

A: Yes, US Government or other government maps, are acceptable provided the source and date are cited. That should okay? Dw31415 (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you suggested at RFN is the way to go, with a slight modification (I made it even simpler and more neutral):

Should recent, US government published maps be included on this and similar pages and why?

A: Yes.

B: No.

C: Include pre-2016 CIA maps because they are less problematic.

D: Avoid US or other government world maps (state preferred sources). M.Bitton (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Sorry this discussion has gotten so spread out and out of hand I'm struggling to keep up and didn't catch the full proposal on the NPOV page. That sounds fine, I just want project approval for International boundaries I choose to use and a clear set of instructions for future updates. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether US or other government maps should be included but whether they should be excluded. There was little pushback on the question of whether another map would be appropriate, and if the discussion had started with the suggestion of a UN map rather than the use of a composite of older US ones, we might not have got here. The question as it stands is whether US maps are inappropriate, not whether they might be the best ones for this page. So I suggest this framing (with the order preserved from the original):

1. Should recent, US-government published maps be excluded from this and similar pages and why?

• A: No.
• B: US-government maps from 2016 onwards (or another threshold) should be excluded.
• C: Yes. Please state why and what sources are preferable
• D: All government published maps (US or otherwise) should be excluded
• E: Other.

Samuelshraga (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have an option about no political maps? TarnishedPath^talk 05:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that should be an option. As a large part of the page is on "Human geography," I don't like that option, but it is one I would agree with over the status quo. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GeogSage, see below proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 02:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add here in hopes this gets started. we had some issues on ANI that haven now been resolved, and I asked @asilvering (pinging so they know I'm posting this, in case they disagree with my understanding of what they suggested) how to proceed to be sure we include temporarily blocked editors arguments, and they responded here. Based on this, I'd like to request a neutral editor here (definitely can't be me) summarize @M.Bitton's arguments in the RfC. Perhaps it would be best to start with "Some editors have argued" without specifying anyone in particular. I'll leave that up to whoever ends up writing the summary if one is deemed necessary. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this draft is a modification of what @Dw31415 proposed above

Should recent, US-government published maps be included on this and similar pages and why?

• A: Yes. Please add any conditions required.
• B: Yes, but only those prior to 2016 or other threshold^[11].
• C: No. Please state why and what sources are preferable
• D: Avoid government published maps (US or otherwise)
• E: Avoid any political maps
• F: Other, including derivative maps

TarnishedPath^talk 02:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @ActivelyDisinterested, @Alaexis, @Blueboar, @Buidhe, @Chipmunkdavis, @Dw31415, @GeogSage, @HansVonStuttgart, @Horse Eye's Back, @M.Bitton, @Samuelshraga, @Cdjp1, @Doniago, @Interstellarity, @Liz, @Purplebackpack89, @Elli, @Escape Orbit and @TryKid as editors involved at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Geography map dispute, Talk:Geography#February 2024 and Talk:Geography#World map for geography page TarnishedPath^talk 02:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. Nice work @TarnishedPath Dw31415 (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good work to you as well! You did good in setting the foundation in a hostile set of talk pages. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This works. Two comments/suggestions:

• Consider the phrase "continue to be" in front of included, as that has been what we have been more or less doing up until now. Minor wording and might not be important, and I wouldn't fight hard over it.
• Consider Including a "Allow ANY official government map (US or otherwise) that is cited/dated properly" as an amended version of option C and the inverse of D.

(I would not argue very hard to force these, just suggesting.)

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real objection to adding "continue to be", although I do find it unnecessary. However I wouldn't argue about that.

As for adding another option that is the inverse of D, we run the risk of having too many options and being less likely to arrive at some outcome. Also I think that if editors wanted to argue an inverse of D that they could !vote A and then specify in their reasoning that they extend that to any official government maps.

Thoughts? TarnishedPath^talk 03:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about the "To many options." Consider that withdrawn, you're right, I'm sure others will bring it up if they think it's important. The wording is mostly just to state we aren't doing something new, it is adjusting something we are already doing. From a purely academic perspective, I am really interested in what we come up with, my imaginary money is on a UN map for the main geography page. I'm not sure if we will be able to work out anything binding that could apply more broadly, strict rules would disrupt a lot of pages. I've found when it comes to maps, blatant misinformation is defended if it might disrupt several pages using the image. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• D/F Government published maps should be used only to show the position of that particular government, which often is not the majority view, let alone one that could be stated in wiki voice per the NPOV policy. (t · c) buidhe 03:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buidhe, we're only discussing a draft RFC question at present. TarnishedPath^talk 03:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For example, the derivative map "of the 2015 and 2021 CIA maps authored to avoid NPOV issues" does no such thing. It doesn't display the state of Palestine which is currently recognized by 146 of the 193 member states of the United Nations, instead showing the United States' minority position on that matter. (t · c) buidhe 03:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  G - None of the above. All of the current choices are problematic. please present more options. Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not convinced it’s that useful a question, but the choices listed range from include the map to include no maps. What other options are missing, and what would be an unproblematic choice? CMD (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blueboar, while keeping in mind that if we go too far with options we could end up having a less effective RFC, what options are missing that you think people would want to be !voting? TarnishedPath^talk 07:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for picking up the ball @TarnishedPath. I suggested above framing the question as exclude rather than include. That said, happy to support this as is if that suggestion is controversial. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what's the purpose of showing the derivative map. Does the Option F refer to derivative maps in general or to this specific derivative map? If it's the former, let's remove this map in order not to mislead editors. If it's the latter it should be clearly stated and there should be a list of changes vs the original CIA map. Alaexis_¿question? 08:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a derivative of the 2015 and 2021 CIA map there in the question, so hopefully that answers your question. I don't see any reason why option F couldn't list the changes per your suggestion. TarnishedPath^talk 08:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not not talking about having more RFC options… I am talking about presenting us with a range of different maps to choose from. Blueboar (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't give a letter, since I find the options too limiting, but I'll offer my opinion here. I am leaning towards using a historical map to illustrate the geography page. I am providing this link for some historical maps that we could use. Of course, I don't think these should be our only options, but I'm hoping it will provide a starting point on choosing which historical map is best. I think for most of those maps, because they were made so long ago, that licensing will not be an issue, and the maps are likely to be in the public domain. However, if editors decide that they want a current map, my first preference would be the UN map, then the most recent CIA map, in that order. I am against using user created maps here (such as the derivative CIA map listed above) as I prefer the maps to be in published reliable sources. I would like to start off the discussion strong and finish strong with a consensus on what to do and that's why I'd like to get the ball rolling so that we can discuss it here. Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not opposed to a historical map or one that shows de facto control rather than purporting to show which territory legitimately belongs to which country, in the cases where this is significantly disputed. (t · c) buidhe 23:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would suggest the Ptolemy map personally, see attached.

  

  I want to point out an excellent gallery on the page Mercator 1569 world map. The Mercator 1569 world map might also be an excellent option, however Mercator is a bit of a controversial figure in history now. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see why we couldn't include an option or two from there or any other good world map images that can be found from commons. Pinging @Blueboar who suggested more map samples, for input. TarnishedPath^talk 02:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We're mixing up different types of maps here. The Ptolemy map is basically a geographic map, lacking borders. If we do not need a political map, let's just skip the whole RfC and use a topographic map or similar. CMD (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  

  

  

  A non-political map was certainly suggested by a number of editors in the NPOV/N discussion and it would be one way to bypass a contentious discussion. However I don't think everyone would agree with that option, although it should certainly be covered in any RFC.

  There's a whole bunch of topographical maps at c:Category:Topographic maps of the world. I've included some samples. TarnishedPath^talk 03:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If editors would not agree with that option, it would be good for that to be stated. If there was a positive affirmation of the need for a political map I missed it, but it should be given prior to the RfC. Currently the RfC treats it as a given, burying that question down in option E. CMD (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Another thing to consider, borders are not the only controversial thing about world maps. We are unlikely to get many serious editors fighting about it at the same level as the borders, but projection can be controversial as well. I mention mostly because I like the Boggs eumorphic projection as an option, but think there are others we could consider. Nothing radical like a Euler spiral projection, but we should probably avoid the Mercator unless it's a really old one. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My favourite for a topographic map was also the Boggs eumorphic projection (which is why I put it at the top). As far a CMD's comment about option E, I see no reason why it couldn't be moved up. I'll post a 2.0a draft shortly. TarnishedPath^talk 05:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should recent, US-government published maps be included on this and similar pages and why?

• A: Yes. Please add any conditions required.
• B: Yes, but only those prior to 2016 or other threshold^[12].
• C: Avoid government published maps (US or otherwise)
• D: Avoid any political maps
• E: No. Please state why and what sources are preferable
• F: Other, including derivative maps

Thoughts anyone? TarnishedPath^talk 05:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good enough to start. Like was said above, if people have more to discuss they can state it when it goes live. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]