Talk:Geography

{{atop|result=moved|reason=This discussion has generated an RfC below. Please continue the conversation there as needed. If I’ve missed a unique thread here, please consider breaking that out to its own topic. Please contact me on my talk with any concerns about this closing. Dw31415 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)}}

{{tq|All maps showing human geographic boundaries are political.|q=yes}} is that supposed to be a good reason to publish the latest controversial US political POV in an encyclopedia?

{{tq|Updating the map to reflect updates make more sense then leaving an outdated version|q=yes}} what (other than the US political POV) needs updating and what part of the other map is "outdated" (whatever that means)?

{{tq|The CIA world fact book is generally considered a reliable primary source|q=yes}} 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)

: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)

:@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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

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

::::::::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)

:::::::::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)

::::::::::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)

:::::::::::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)

::::::::::::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)

:::::::::::::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)

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

::::::::::::::{{tq|The opinion of the United States federal government is not exactly "fringe|q=yes}} 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)

::::::::::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)

:::::::::::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)

:::@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)

::::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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::{{tq|The United States federal governments official view on international politics is not a "fringe theory."|q=yes}} 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)

:::::::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)

::::::::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)

:::::::::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)

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

::::::::::{{tq|the opinion of the US on international borders is not a "Fringe" opinion|q=yes}} It most certainly is in this case, and since I'm tired of repeating the obvious, I will leave you with some articles[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/10/america-ukraine-russia-international-law][https://thehill.com/policy/defense/529732-gop-chairman-calls-trumps-western-sahara-deal-shocking-and-deeply/][https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/2020-12-11/ty-article/russia-says-u-s-backing-for-moroccan-claim-on-western-sahara-illegal/0000017f-db6c-d3a5-af7f-fbee147c0000][https://twitter.com/SenatorLeahy/status/1337125889902075905][https://twitter.com/BettyMcCollum04/status/1337108661588680707] 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)

:::::::::::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)

::::::::::::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)

:::::::::::::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.

:::::::::::::{{tq|was CIA World Factbook's position in 2015 any less fringe?|q-yes}} 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)

::::::::::::{{tq|The CIA World Factbook says what it says.|q=yes}} the recent one is saying nonsense by pretending that an entire country ceased to exist (while contradicting what it said for decades).

::::::::::::{{tq|What it says can change|q=yes}} sure, but facts don't change because it says so.

::::::::::::{{tq|Your opinion, and the opinions of others, do not change what the source says|q=yes}} we don't change the sources that promote falsehoods, we just ignore them.

::::::::::::{{tq|do not make the official opinion of the US "fringe"|q=yes}} 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)

:::::::::::::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)

::::::::::::::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.

::::::::::::::File:Ptolemy-World_Vat_Urb_82.jpg

::::::::::::::File:Seragliensis_57.png

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

:::::::::::::::@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)

::::::::::::::::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)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Wikipedia:Peer review/Geography/archive1}}

{{atop|status=moved|reason=RfC opened below Dw31415 (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)}}

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)

: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)

: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)

: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)

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

File:CIA World Physical Map (2023).pdf

::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)

:::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 {{tq|something that is somewhat simple and not overwhelmingly detailed|q=yes}} suggestion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

:::::::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)

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

:::::::::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)

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

::::::::::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)

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

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

:::::::::::::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)

::::::::::::::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)

:::::::::::::::"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)

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

:::::::::::::::::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)

::::::::::::::::::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)

:::::::::::::::::::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)

::::::::::::::::::::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)

::::::::::::::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)

:::::::::::::::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)

::::::::::::::::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)

:::::::::::::::::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)

::::::::::::::::::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)

:::::::::::::::::::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)

::::::::::::::::::::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?

::::::::::::::::::::{{tq|POV problem|q=yes}} 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)

:::::::::::::::::::::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)

::::::::::::::::::::::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)

:::::::::::::::::::::::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)

::::::::::::::::::::::::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)

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

::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)

:@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)

::@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)

:::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)

::::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)

• 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)
• :{{re|Liz}} the discussion has moved to WP:RFN. M.Bitton (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• :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)
• ::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)
• :::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)
• ::::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)
• :::::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)
• ::::::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)

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

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

: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)

{{archive bottom}}

{{atop|status=moved|result=RfC opened below. Thanks for the collaboration here to open the RfC Dw31415 (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)}}

this draft may change as part of the pre-opening discussion. This RfC based on based on discussion at [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard?markasread=334831942&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Geography_map_dispute NPOV notice board]

File:CIA World Physical Map (2023).pdf

File:Physical World Map.svg

File:Official United Nations World Map - 20 February 2020.svg

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{{ref|western-sahara}}.
• 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)

:{{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)

::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)

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

::::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 [https://www.un.org/geospatial/content/map-world 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)

:::::{{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)

: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)

::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)

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

:{{re|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)

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

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

:::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)

::::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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

::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)

:::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)

:::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)

: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)

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

:::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)

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

: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1279649773 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)

this draft is a modification of what @Dw31415 proposed above

File:CIA World Physical Map (2023).pdf

File:Physical World Map.svg

File:Official United Nations World Map - 20 February 2020.svg

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{{ref|western-sahara}}.
• 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)

: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)

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

:::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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

• 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)
• :@Buidhe, we're only discussing a draft RFC question at present. TarnishedPath^talk 03:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• :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)
• ::G - None of the above. All of the current choices are problematic. please present more options. Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::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)
• :::@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)

: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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

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

• 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 [https://www.atlasandboots.com/travel-blog/maps-that-changed-our-worldview/ 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)
• :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)
• :I would suggest the Ptolemy map personally, see attached. File:Claudius Ptolemy- The World.jpg
• :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)
• ::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)
• ::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)
• :::thumb
• :::thumb
• :::thumb
• :::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)
• ::::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)
• :::::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)
• ::::::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)

File:CIA World Physical Map (2023).pdf

File:Physical World Map.svg

File:Official United Nations World Map - 20 February 2020.svg

File:Boggs eumorphic projection SW.JPG

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{{ref|western-sahara}}.
• 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)

: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)

{{clear}}

{{archive bottom}}

{{closed rfc top|It's been less than 30 days, however, there have been no new !votes here in a couple weeks. In response to a request at WP:CR, I am closing this RfC.

Per our policies and guidelines, the determination of WP:CON is WP:NOTAVOTE. There is less than unanimity in this discussion. When this is the case, our policies and guidelines require the closer to close based on whichever argument is supported by {{xt|"the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians"}} after first discarding arguments {{Xt|"that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue"}} (see: WP:NHC).

A preliminary pulse check reveals that, in broad strokes, 5 editors support A, 2 support D or E, 1 supports E, 1 supports D or F, 1 supports D, 1 supports C, and two express other opinions.

• The identification of consensus begins by finding areas of agreement. On that basis, I began with an analysis of maximum element frequency. This analysis produced the following adjusted results: 5 editors support A, 3 editors support D, 1 editor supports E, 1 editor supports C, and there are two additional opinions.
• Next, to determine the view of "responsible" Wikipedians I conducted a census of which Wikipedians in this discussion were "responsible". To apply this term, I eliminated any Wikipedian topic banned on this subject, any editors who indicated they had been WP:CANVASSed to the discussion, as well as obvious WP:SPAs. This census produced no change in results.
• Finally, I began the process of discarding !votes that are "based on personal opinion only" by eliminating all WP:VAGUEWAVEs, as well as any !votes invoking wording or phrases indicative of personal preference, or which made no attempt to invoke even a glancing reference to our policies or guidelines. This analysis produced no change in results.

"A" !voters, who constituted a plurality, appended various caveats drawn from different policies and guidelines to their !votes but which can be broadly summarized by User:Strebe who said that {{Xt|” Maps likely to provoke controversy should be avoided unless suitable alternatives cannot be found or unless the purpose is to illustrate controversy.”}} and User:Jacobolus who objected to the idea of a priori rejection but held out the idea that individual maps might be avoided in specific circumstances. CMD, who was one of the “no letter !voters” cited our WP:PERTINENCE guideline to essentially (albeit not precisely) mirror the caveats largely applied by the “A” !voters. One of the "D" !votes also opined a less than affirmative declaration noting WP:PRIMARY but also holding out that, in some cases, PRIMARY might be acceptable.

At the end of the day, there was a fairly wide berth of agreement, though editors signaled positions that often agreed with each other using different survey letter choices.

In response to the RfC question Should recent, US-government published maps be included on this and similar pages and why?, the consensus is that there should be no a priori acceptance, nor a priori rejection, of the validity of maps produced by the U.S. Government and the use or non-use of any specific map should be done on a case-by-case basis taking into account relevant policies and guidelines, including but not limited to WP:PRIMARY, WP:PERTINENCE, and WP:NPOV. Chetsford (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)}}

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{{ref|western-sahara}}.
• 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

TarnishedPath^talk 07:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

CIA World Physical Map (2023).pdf|Recent (2023), non-derivative, CIA PDF

Physical World Map.svg|A derivative of the 2015 and 2021 CIA maps authored to avoid NPOV issues SVG

Official United Nations World Map - 20 February 2020.svg|UN 2020 World Map SVG {{ref|un-omits}}

Boggs eumorphic projection SW.JPG|Boggs eumorphic projection

• A. (With the caveat that a US government-published map is not necessarily the best map in every instance, so each map can be taken on its own merits). In prior discussion, I saw no reason to prefer other governments' political maps to US ones (basically every country has an idiosyncratic combination of recognitions/stances on partially recognised states and border disputes). The same goes for political maps from other sources. For example, whereas US-government maps now don't include Western Sahara, UN ones don't include Kosovo. I see no reason to exclude either body a priori as a source for an illustrative map. The only consistent alternative is D and I consider this unnecessarily restrictive. Attribution of the source of the map is sufficient. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• D (first option) All political maps (US or otherwise) implicitly push the interests of the producer. In Wikipedia articles we don't just slap images anywhere that they might look pretty. Images are supposed to be used to provide visual illustration of the content of the section they're in, or the page as a whole (in the case of those in infobox). In this circumstance, given the content matter, a political map is simply not needed in the fundamentals section (where it currently sits) when a topographical map will serve just as well for illustrative purposes. Therefore, I would recommend we use the Boggs eumorphic projection (displayed to the right). {{pb

}} If we are to use a political map then E (second option) we should use the UN world map (displayed to the right). While not perfect, as others have stated in pre-discussions, it at least is not implicitly pushing the interests of any particular nation state. TarnishedPath^talk 09:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• None of the above, the key issue for image choice is MOS:PERTINENCE, and this very broad question does not address it. Maps are of course relevant to Geography, but the particular map (or other image) choice will depend on the content it is meant to illustrate. Declaring a certain map is not relevant for the topic of Geography, including its similar articles, does not make sense. Even if it doesn't fit on the current article, it may do on a future version, or fit on a similar article. TarnishedPath is correct the map is mostly decorative in its current position, and I have mentioned elsewhere that just using a topographical map there would avoid that particular issue, however, that is not the RfC question. We cannot D, "Avoid any political maps", across Geography and similar articles. That would mean an inability to illustrate quite a basic concept. Nor should we likely avoid C, as all publishers make choices (at least a government's choices are usually easy to explain). What should be done is that maps are chosen per MOS:PERTINENCE, and attributed to a particular origin in captions, if needed. CMD (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree with all this - would it be reasonable to summarise your position as saying that recent US-government maps shouldn't be excluded, but that discussions of inclusion will be specific to each article and the part of the article where they take place? Samuelshraga (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Thanks, that is a reasonable summary. I would add as an addendum that I see no strong advantage to the USA map illustrating the current Fundamentals section, compared to other maps. I would even suggest a world map may not be the best scope to illustrate mapping fundamentals. CMD (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• A My opinion is stated in detail across the numerous talk pages, but I'll state it here again. Official government maps should be used with proper citation/attribution and date. Unless we have a particualar reason to use historic maps, I think we should use the most up to date set of boundaries from our chosen, and update as they come out. These boundary files should not be modified by editors as that would be either POV or Original Research (depending on how you frame the redrawing of lines), and editors should not selectively update boundary files. While the issue here is largely about the U.S. changing it's stance on the borders of Morrocco and existence of Western Sahara, Russia, China, and India have stances that are at least as controversial when it comes to borders. That said, I'm not particular about which governments lines we use, and think the United Nations ones might be the least likely to cause controversy between nationalists with competing opinions on which set we should use, based on conversations above. For various thematic maps though, the boundaries should match the dataset we are showing (i.e. if we're showing population density based on the CIA world factbook, we should use U.S. boundaries). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• A Any map from a WP:RELIABLE source could be used circumstantially, including maps produced by the US government. Maps likely to provoke controversy should be avoided unless suitable alternatives cannot be found or unless the purpose is to illustrate controversy. Whether we ought to ban maps from the US government seems like a terribly uninformed question: Enormous quantities of USGS topological maps (for example) are in the public domain and highly suited to Wikipedia use because they are free of copyright, authoritative, and often the only source. The question really seems to be about political maps of the world from the US government, so the question seems ill-posed. MOS:PERTINENCE has been brought up, and I agree with the points made about that. However, where a political map of the world is needed, the US government is as authoritative and valid a source as any other, and I cannot express my disagreement strongly enough about those who advocate messing with maps to doctor them up with their own interpretations of how they ought to show the political world. I’m sure they feel righteous about it, but everything about that enterprise is contrary to Wikipedia policy. It is fine to explicitly state on the caption that the boundaries shown are from the point of view of the US government. There isn’t any answer to this particular problem that is “correct” or that won’t offend a lot of people. This is not to say we ought to preferentially choose a US governmental map; it really is about pertinence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strebe (talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:A, for educational/aesthetic reasons, considering the alternatives. Every map has a bias as it cannot represent the infinitely complex reality. For instance, the UN map above shows the Chagos Islands as belonging to Mauritius which is quite controversial. Arunachal Pradesh is shown as a separate entity with solid boundaries even though it's de facto controlled by India. Since there is no single truth and every POV won't be liked by someone, it's better to use the CIA map that looks the best and shows topographical features that are arguably more important than borders. Needless to say we should attribute it clearly. D could also be a good option if we can find a suitable map. Alaexis_¿question? 07:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• My opinion doesn't neatly fall into any of the letters, but I'll give mine anyway. I am leaning towards E with using a historical map to illustrate the geography page. I have no opinion on which historical map to use, but I feel that a historical map would probably best represent the subject here. 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 from published reliable sources. In general, I would prefer the CIA map as a last resort and have the most recent one in the article. I would also be in favor of having the caption on the map to state the source of the map as well as the year the map was published. Interstellarity (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• D/E With one caveat: I do think the UN map would be the "least" political and therefore appropriate to use. To those supporting, there is also a question as to whether the US government is currently a "reliable" source. SportingFlyer T·C 11:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I think if there's a question about whether the US government is reliable in general, for the purposes of maps it has published it would be covered by Wikipedia:RSOPINION so there is no reliability concern (leaving aside questions of "less" or "more" political maps, which I think many editors have covered). Samuelshraga (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• D by definition these are primary sources (that is all political maps),. as such they are claims, and so should not be stated as facts. So it all depends on context. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• C, the UN map should be prioritised. Haven't seen any convincing arguments for why we should use the US' map rather than other countries', seems unnecessarily POV. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• F>B: Drafting a statement of M.Bitton's position at User_talk:Dw31415#RfC_Maps_Response_for_M.Bitton Dw31415 (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC) withdrawn by admin request Dw31415 (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• A Any map which meets Wikipedia standards (WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc.), has acceptable license without copyright concern, and is legible, reasonable attractive, etc. is fine for inclusion in Wikipedia. The best available map should be used for any particular context, and there's no a priori reason to reject them based on the creator; rejecting all products of large governments for non-specific reasons is a good way to just eliminate valuable images that Wikipedia volunteers don't have the capacity to completely remake / aren't worth volunteer time that would be better spent on making new work instead of pointlessly duplicating existing work in the name of ideological purity. Maps should instead be evaluated by their content (including visual style). The particular maps under discussion here seem completely fine, and no good reason has been given for rejecting them. Indeed this entire exercise seems like a time waster motivated by political ideology without any concern for Wikipedia authors or readers. If US-government produced maps stop meeting Wikipedia standards (for example, a map on which the Gulf of Mexico is labeled "Gulf of America" would not satisfy WP:NPOV) then they should be rejected on those grounds. –jacobolus (t) 21:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• F As others have said maps needs to meet the standards of RS and NPOV, just like any other content. As the most recent US govermental map doesn't meet those standards it shouldn't be used anywhere but articles were US political opinion is due for inclusion (Oppose A). If a map showing "Gulf of America" wouldn't be acceptable, then a map showing that Morocco fully owns Western Saraha (not supported by RS, not something that is defacto on the ground, and is in the map due to US diplomatic concerns alone) is equally unacceptable. Govermental sources (regardless of the country) should be attributed to that government and are only due where the opinion of that government makes sense. Use of UN maps is one possibility, but user generated maps (which are already used on thousands of article) that can be shown to be based on RS are another option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Could you please explain what you mean when you say that showing all of Western Sahara as part of Morocco is {{tq|not supported by RS}}?
• :Or in general why the UN map omitting Kosovo is more acceptable than the US map omitting Western Sahara (or renaming the Gulf of Mexico)? I don't understand what role RS should be playing here as you describe them in your !vote, but it seems to me that Kosovo's claim to existence is at least as well sourced, is a de facto country on the ground and is only omitted from the UN map due to various political considerations (Chinese and Russian ones). So I don't understand the difference between the two cases that you posit. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Kosovo has limited international support, which is why it's missing from the UN map. The same is true of the status of Western Sahara, they are in fact in the same situation. A map showing the contested borders of Kosovo, Western Sahara, the India / Pakistan / China border, Israel / Palestine, would be better neutral than any map showing one side of those disputes. If you believe that a map failing to show the situation in Kosovo is unacceptable, then why would you find one failing to show the situation in Western Sahara as being acceptable? Reliable secondary sources that show those disputes are preferable to one primary governmental source.
  Finally note I barely mentioned the UN map only that it could be better than a map from one particular government. Maps are political, the lines don't actually exist on the ground, so all maps will have political considerations. But that doesn't mean we should accept one that only shows one view point, that would go against NPOV. At least the UN map is made from multiple political viewpoints, even if it is still flawed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• 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 07:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I still think it's unfortunate that the phrasing of the RfC is about inclusion rather than exclusion. While editors might have reasonable policy and content based arguments as to why the US world factbook map that was the subject of the underlying discussions can and should be replaced, I am concerned that an outcome other than A will lead to blind excision of US maps. Given that the RfC is framed in general terms about this and similar articles, and not about one map in particular, I hope that people will contribute on the general acceptability of maps for those spaces, and not for whether we should add/maintain specific instances of US maps in particular parts of these articles. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::The wording of an RFC doesn't necessarily dictate the direction in which discussion goes. Any closer should always look at the contents of the pursuing discussion to determine consensus and not merely what editors chose to !vote. I've seen closers of RFCs determine consensus to be an option that was never mentioned in the RFC question purely on the basis of the discussion that occurred. TarnishedPath^talk 10:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Pinging @Simonm223, @Sean.hoyland and @Slatersteven as editors involved in prior discussions. Sorry I was double checking editors who I pinged and I don't know how I missed you all. Some voodoo to do with your usernames starting with S? TarnishedPath^talk 12:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Just for sake of transparancy, want to mention that I posted a link to this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. I hope we can get some editors who are interested and educated on this topic, especially as it relates to Wikipedia policy, into the discussion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Sorry I didn't think of that. I just posted at the only project that was mentioned at the top of this page. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::No reason to be sorry, you're doing great and I appreciate the help! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• @SportingFlyer, I've stated this a few times in various talk sections but figure I should address it in the RfC as it has been brought up. I believe governments are always good sources for the official stance of the government, and the official borders are a reflection of the countries stance on the issues. When it comes to things like objective scientific research, or the reliability of historical narrative, we can debate the reliability of governments, but China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, France, England, India, Pakistan, Argentinia etc. all publish official maps, and those maps are all accurate reflections of those countries official stances. The UN map is a compromise, but the Super power and Great power countries are all pushing their official views on it more then Middle power countries. This is why we cite and date, because saying a country is wrong or unreliable about their own views is a very odd position to take, like telling a person they are wrong about their favorite color. I should note on the specific issue that has brought this map into controversy, the existence of Western Sahara, Trump made the change during his last term, and Biden did not reverse it. This makes me think it is not very controversial between the U.S. political parties. There isn't an objective reality or correct set of borders we can use, but not using political maps at all is a handicap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :We don't need to tell a country that they are incorrect about their views, we simply need not have material that is in large part a reflection of their views on a page where the subject matter is not even peripherally about their views. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::This is a fair point, the main issue is that on a geography page, one of the most basic tools used in human geography are political maps. An up to date political map would be an elementary way to show the basic human geography of the planet. The page has had a map on it since at least [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geography&oldid=13942498 2005] that showed political boundaries, so this isn't exactly an outrageous novel opinion that the geography page should include one (I do think we should include a contemporary map somewhere, regardless of source). The map from 2005 File:Physical world.jpg used 2004 CIA World Factbook boundaries (see attached). While there is a case to change to the UN map because it isn't more one countries view then another, I definitely am of the opinion that the sudden interest in what source we're using is thinly veiled political opinions. The question I'm responding to is "whether the US government is currently a "reliable" source," to which I'd say that the U.S. is always a reliable source for boundaries showing the official U.S. stance. Furthermore, this discussion should be had regardless of who is in office, and should have been had in 2004/2005. Framing the discussion as one that should be had now because of a change in reliability of the underlying source is going to open an entirely separate can of worms, which I'd rather not try to deal with. I don't want to have a discussion about the Trump administration and their policies masked behind a discussion about the best source for up to date map boundaries. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• @User:jacobolus, largely I agree with your statement, but am curious about your example of "Gulf of America" not being NPOV has me a bit confused. Place name changes are not really that big of a deal and happen all the time, what we call a body of water isn't that important. Different groups/countries can have different names for the same feature without going to war. For example, South China Sea, West Philippine Sea, and Natuna Sea, or Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf. Border disputes have some serious implications for people who live in that location. I don't know if I understand why you're more concerned with the "Gulf of America" place name then the question of if Western Sahara is part of Morocco or if Kosovo exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeogSage (talk • contribs) 00:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• : I think this type of politicized output (or more generally blowback at the isolationism and anti-intellectual moral crusading of the Trump administration) is likely the motivation for this discussion. When those political decisions start having a clear effect on the output, then we should question individual decisions. The "Gulf of America" nonsense has had real deleterious effects, for example as far as I can tell the [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/ USGS earthquake tracker] has had many of its features summarily broken/deleted because the teenagers at DOGE responsible for political censorship didn't have the technical competence/patience to figure out how to change "Gulf of Mexico" to "Gulf of America" on the map imagery so just removed "noncompliant" map layers instead. While it isn't perfect, and like any source should be compared with other sources, for a long time the World Factbook has been a relatively neutral and reliable source of demographic information about places all around the world. But I could certainly imagine that changing if the current US presidential administration starts applying its heavy handed political pressure on the staff responsible for publishing it. If Wikipedians find examples where maps (or tables, diagrams, statistics, etc.) put out by US federal government agencies have been politicized, then those should not be uncritically passed off in Wikipedia's voice as authoritative. But rejecting everything ever made by the US federal government because we don't like some recent politics seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. –jacobolus (t) 01:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Thanks for the answer, I'm still struggling a bit to understand the view, but I think it's a bit clearer. In my opinion, all map boundaries, labels, and content published by a government is a political decision. The World Factbook has had many controversies, and several are listed on the page. Picking and choosing which political decisions to include or exclude is taking a stance, and the official government name for mountains and water bodies is really just cheap political hokum and bunk to pander to the base. Not using a map because of that doesn't seem very NPOV. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Anyone who makes any map is making tons of political decisions. There's no a priori reason to think that the decisions made by an arbitrary Wikipedian will be more neutral just because they haven't declared themselves to be funded by a national government. Most (all?) Wikipedians have political biases, an unfortunate number seem to organize their editing around promoting particular political agendas, and some are surely even secretly being paid for their work. The decisions made by any mapmaker should be open to criticism and discussion from other Wikipedians, but if a map was created by a government that doesn't, a priori, mean that it will do a worse job aligning with Wikipedia policies and goals than a map created by a pseudonymous community member. In my opinion we should be willing to use maps created under a free license irrespective of source, optionally adapted to better align with Wikipedia's needs. –jacobolus (t) 05:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• @User:ActivelyDisinterested, what do you mean by user generated maps? If it is a map based on some official boundaries with data by that source, that is one thing. Combining seperate boundary files, or generating a new one entirely to make a new one that better fits a particular world view, would be OR in my opinion. If such maps exist with user synthesized boundaries from multiple sources are wide spread, they should be deleted in the same way a page that "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes" should be deleted. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I mean the type of maps that are commonly used in the infoboxes of most country articles or similar. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::For instance the map of the boundaries of South Sudan, which correctly shows disputed territories. The boundaries of a country are usually denoted by law or international treaty, so an editor creating such a map wouldn't be engaging in OR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Looking at the infobox maps for Mexico, File:MEX orthographic.svg and the United States File:USA orthographic.svg, both list [https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/50m-cultural-vectors/ Natural Earth Data] as their source (from my understanding, these are basically the files supported by North American Cartographic Information Society, but I haven't worked with them extensively) fairly clearly. We could add Natural Earth Data as a possible acceptable source in addition to the UN, as they seem to be taking an academic approach to the problem. The map on South Sudan you point to is disturbing in that I can't clearly find where they found the boundaries they are using File:South Sudan (orthographic projection) highlighted.svg. On Wikimedia, it links to several other files on Wikipedia, and many are modified versions of other files that are not well sourced. Some list the source as "own work" which is either unacceptable OR, or not properly citing the original cartographer (probably more likely). I would consider this no different from writing stuff without a source, and think they should be replaced by maps that are properly sourced to somewhere. This is the kind of wide spread problem we have on Wikipedia that seems to have been ignored when it comes to cartography. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Something being marked as "own work" is relevant to copyright, as in the uploading owns the copyright of their wonderful work. It is irrelevant to matters of OR, unless your interpretation of WP:OR is that all content that isn't a 1-1 match to a source is OR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::A set of boundary files are either properly attributed to a reliable source, or they are original. When it comes to boundary files, I absolutely think they need to 1-1 match a source to avoid being OR. Boundary files need to be cited in the same way that an exact quote needs to be cited to avoid being plagiarism (a real problem in cartography is people feel entitled to the work of cartographers without attribution). A map that does not cite a source is either the view of the editor who created it, and their view alone, or plagarism. I have no idea who made the original files that the South Sudan map is based on, what their biases are, or what material they used to draw these lines, and that is a huge problem that is widespread on the site. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Here is an example of a map I made as "Own Work." The description in it says "Based on data from the CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index, this bi-variate choropleth map compares the percentage of the population over 65 and the population 17 and under in counties within the Contiguous United States of America. The map was created in ArcGIS Pro. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry/ Geospatial Research, Analysis, and Services Program. CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index, 2020, Database US Counties https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/data_documentation_download.html"
• :::::The thematic map itself is my "own work", but the data source is given, and if you go to that link, you can find the unmodified dataset, and if you have ArcGIS Pro or similar software, could easily recreate the map itself. If I wanted to, changing the values is as easy as editing a table in excel, changing the borders is as easy as drawing a line in paint, but making those changes would not be appropriate.
• :::::File:Comparison of ages in the Contiguous United States by county, 2020.jpg GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Yes they should comply with V as well as NPOV, and I'd fully accept that many of the files used in articles fail those requirements. But my point that "own work" relates to copyright, not whether the work is OR stands. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I see what you mean, it's been a while since I uploaded on Commons and I never spent much time working with it. The issue is when the only source we have for a map is "own work," there needs to be proper documentation just like any other set of facts, we can't just spit out country land area and population without a proper citation, borders are not different. It should be easy for someone who isn't afraid of QGIS (or something like it) to recreate a map on Wikipedia to check if it matches the source data. Ideally, the uploader should include the software they used in the description as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Completely agree that user generated maps should have proper sourcing, they need to comply with policy as much as any other content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Do you think the map on the "South Sudan" page is adequately sourced? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::unless your interpretation of WP:OR is that all content that isn't a 1-1 match to a source is OR: That is the problem. It is either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or both. Hence we keep having these massive edit wars and debates because certain people think their own view of boundaries and political divisions are inherently right or unbiased and thereby trump Wikipedia rules. The only way out of that is, surprisingly, to follow the rules. Natural Earth Data is an excellent source, by the way. Strebe (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Thanks for the 2nd opinion on the National Earth Data! I've only heard of it in passing, I've never used them for a source in a map but am adding them to my personal data horde and lectures as we speak. In my IRL job, the research I've done on Africa was using state department datasets, and therefore needed state department boundaries. I'm glad to find another source to add as an option. I'm not sure where we could do this, maybe Wikiproject Maps, but some sort of basic cartographic conventions and standards should be established, with a list of acceptable datasets for boundaries and place names. The project is in desperate need of a cartographic task force to clean things up. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::A nice thing about the NED is that the databases include attributes for disputed boundaries. Careful attention to them — showing boundaries as disputed, rather than as “fact” — can preempt a lot of the NPOV noise. It’s no cure-all, of course, since many ideologues, particularly from national viewpoints, do not acknowledge that a boundary is disputed and therefore consider marking it as disputed to be a point of view. Strebe (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::That does sound nice! In the various talk pages, there have been calls for "neutral" academic sources. While I would never agree a source is truly neutral on political maps (even saying a boundary is disputed is a stance on it, as several countries assert that the land is theirs and reject the idea of a dispute entirely), this might be one that satisfies that request. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Noting that I've already argued for a topographic map and that if we are to use a political map that I've argued for the UN one, pages use user generated images all the time and there is never any argument of WP:OR in regards to those. The important part of the usage of images is that per MOS:IMAGEREL {{tq|[i]mages must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative}}. TarnishedPath^talk 20:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Maps are not normal images, they are models of reality used to communicate spatial information (especially if we subscribe to the Map communication model). As models, all maps are distortions/simplifications of reality, and to avoid misinformation there are established cartographic conventions that should be followed. Map creation follows the Cartographic design process, which involves planning, data collection, implementation, and production. If we are not citing our sources for data collection, and instead using user generated boundaries, we are creating original data for the map. As maps are used to communicate ideas, user generated boundaries are no different then typing an original idea into a Wikipedia page. The fact no one has dealt with this is not a reason to continue doing it. A bad map is worse then no map at all, just like misinformation is worse then no information at all. Any unsourced user generated boundaries should be removed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

The RfC is now closed and the consensus is " there should be no a priori acceptance, nor a priori rejection, of the validity of maps produced by the U.S. Government and the use or non-use of any specific map should be done on a case-by-case basis taking into account relevant policies and guidelines, including but not limited to WP:PRIMARY, WP:PERTINENCE, and WP:NPOV" as can be seen above. To implement this, we still need to swap a map and remove the template for neutrality. @Interstellarity, I believe the updated map you proposed originally should fit this consensus for now if you want to update it. We can discuss other options, like the UN map or something else (I'm leaning towards the Natural Earth Data after following the discussion personally). Once done, could someone remove the neutrality template? Based on my involvement I'd prefer not to be the one to do so. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:Isn't that the one that started this whole discusion, the one that isn't NPOV compliant? I don't see how using that map would be implementing the RFC close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::File:CIA World Physical Map (2023).pdf

::The one we currently have is a product derived from multiple maps, and in my opinion (as a professional cartographer/geographer, although it's Wikipedia, so I know my credentials are not an argument), based on the Wikipedia policies, is not NPOV compliant, is WP:OR, and I would classify it as misinformation. The map Interstellarity tried to include is the U.S. government's map. Updating the current map has been blocked since February 2024, at least, and that has been what caused the whole RfC. The neutrality notification was put in place by the author of the current map, who was blocking updates that showed changes in the U.S. official diplomatic policy. The Consensus is "there should be no a priori acceptance, nor a priori rejection, of the validity of maps produced by the U.S. Government." As I understand it, that means we can use U.S. government maps and there should be no reason to avoid updating the current map to a more up-to-date version. I don't think that the RfC close adequately addressed users synthesizing a map from multiple sources for political reasons. If we want to change the source of the map to a U.N. one, or something else, we can. Until then though, I think the tag can go and map replaced with one that accurately reflects the source. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The close says the maps should be considered on a case by case basis taking into account the relevent policies. You understanding of the close is wrong. It says US maps can be used, but the close doesn't say they have to be used. The policy based arguments against the map haven't changed. If you believe the old map is equally deficient that would be grounds for removing the old map, but the new map is still has the same issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The current map violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It needs to go. We’re not going to get anything that doesn’t express a viewpoint (which is inherent in a map), but the other candidate maps at least don’t run afoul of the other guidelines. Strebe (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with implementing the map above. Interstellarity (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The map above is fine among the choices offered, the arguments about NPOV somewhat ignored that there is no NPOV map. That said, this again feels constrained by assumptions that haven't been discussed. Why is a world map being used at all? What is it conveying from the section it is in? CMD (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm not saying any map is without NPOV (no one did), but that just because that's true doesn't mean we should use any map without qualification. If that was true using Russia's map showing ownership of parts of Ukraine in the Ukraine article, or an Israeli map showing ownership of the Golan heights in the Syria article, would be acceptable. Finding a map that best suites the article is still a valid option. The argument is that a map showing the US diplomatic opinion of the world isn't the right map for the Geography article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Understandable, I'm open to any other map we can give clear citations to, but am concerned with replacing the current one and the tag until then. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Plenty of people said X or Y map wasn't NPOV, but there was no follow up on the lack of an NPOV map. All very well saying what country's diplomatic opinions someone might disagree with, but that is not helpful unless it comes with a statement of what the "right map" is: which country's diplomatic opinions people want to show and why. CMD (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Absolutely no map could be better than a NPOV map. If the only map we had showed the British empire still existing, no map would definitely be better. We should use a geographic map, rather than a political one, or as others pointed out the UN map. It has it's problems, but at least represents the view points of a multi-national organisation rather than one particular government. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::A political map is just a map that shows geographic boundaries of countries, states, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by "geographic map," except maybe a physical map showing only natural features without any borders. This makes it impossible to illustrate very important geographic concepts, like countries and borders. The RfC states there is not an "a priori rejection" of U.S. Government maps. We are currently using a product based on U.S. Government maps, and have for over a decade, we're just updating it to the most current one. If we want to change the source we use, we can discuss that, but it should be noted again that there is no such thing as a NPOV map, this is literally the theoretical foundation behind most of Critical cartography, and is an active area of cartographic research. From a quantitative perspective, looking at the Modifiable areal unit problem "the areal units (zonal objects) used in many geographical studies are arbitrary, modifiable, and subject to the whims and fancies of whoever is doing, or did, the aggregating." There is not a POV that is Neutral when it comes to drawing lines on a map, just one that better fits the world views of editors making the arbitrary decision to choose one over another. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::There's an article for Political Geography (which doesn't even have a map), while the general understanding of geography would be the physical features of the world. The first sentence of the article even points towards this, {{tq|... is the study of the lands, features...}} I'm not sure why you mention that part of the RFC here, but the full statement is {{tq|there should be no a priori acceptance, nor a priori rejection}}. And again I have never said there is a non-NPOV map, it's not my argument, and has nothing to do with my argument. But choice of a map is not arbitrary, and is (as per the RFC close) something that has to comply with policy. Having a map that includes multiple view points is by definition less POV than one that is solely based on one view point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Which view points would you prefer to include? CMD (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I'm not sure how to respond to this, as it's so reductive. I would prefer a map that isn't solely based on the opinion of the US goverment, and have suggest two different options in my last comment. Why should we solely represent the opinion of the US government in an article that is globally relevant? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The two different maps you pointed out were a "geographic map", which isn't specific enough to figure out the meaning, and a "UN map", which does not present multiple view points. I find it hard to link these to the "map that includes multiple view points", so I asked what sort of viewpoints you meant. The inclusion of a single map does not mean an article solely represents the US government, so that is a bit of a red herring. CMD (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::That political geography article really needs to be expanded, the state of geography articles on Wikipedia is depressing, and a map would certainly be an improvement. That said, the lede of this article is: "Geography (from Ancient Greek γεωγραφία geōgraphía; combining gê 'Earth' and gráphō 'write', literally 'Earth writing') is the study of the lands, features, inhabitants, and phenomena of Earth. Geography is an all-encompassing discipline that seeks an understanding of Earth and its human and natural complexities—not merely where objects are, but also how they have changed and come to be. While geography is specific to Earth, many concepts can be applied more broadly to other celestial bodies in the field of planetary science. Geography has been called "a bridge between natural science and social science disciplines."" Physical geography is not the "general understanding of geography," Human geography and Technical geography are both major components of the discipline. Features on the Earth's surface can be human or "natural." Reducing it to just "natural" landforms is not in line with any of the major views or organizations of the discipline. I think that the full text of the lede makes this pretty obvious, and it feels like you're misrepresenting the text to push an argument that is not supported by cherry picking that small section of the lede sentence. Back to the main point of the map, fundamentally, the map we have now is unacceptable, and we have used the CIA World Factbook for over a decade. Updating the map to the latest version should not be controversial, if you have a map you'd prefer we use, we can discuss that, but until we have consensus on a new source we should update the one we've been using. As long as we cite where we got the border file from (And we should do that in the figure caption), we are just giving an example of an up to date political map used by the U.S.. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::It is an updated political world map showing the US diplomatic position. It's controversial because the situation in the world has changed in the last ten years. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I don’t pretend to know what a “general understanding” is, and I’m surprised you do or think you do, but “geography” just means “physical features” is false, which is why we have the terms “physical geography”, “topology”, “physiography” and so forth when we want to talk about geography that’s only/mostly about physical features. Strebe (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::It's is part of Geography I accept, but that doesn't answer why the US diplomatic position should be given such a prominent position. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::You can litigate that after it replaces the map that the RfC determined must go. There is nothing a priori about the CIA map that prohibits its use other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We get get around to the slower process of replacing it with something generally more likable later, but since you already acknowledge that any map has an WP:NPOV problem, it’s just a matter of haggling to get to a good-enough solution. Strebe (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not saying any map is without NPOV (no one did)… You implied it with Isn't that the one that started this whole discusion, the one that isn't NPOV compliant? as if we should now go find one that complies with WP:NPOV, which you are now backpedaling to say doesn’t exist but somehow still resist the proposal for an immediate solution to the problem the RfC intends to solve. It is better to get rid of the map that the RfC censured now because it was agreed that it’s wrong, and to go with something else. If you want to litigate that something else once it’s in place, you are welcome to—indeed, most of us do seem to want something else—but that has nothing to do with the need to get rid of the artifact that the RfC demonstrated does not follow policy. The proposed replacement does not violate the policies that the status quo violates. The question isn’t WP:NPOV vs not in the case of maps; it’s a question how much point of view… and not even that, because there are many axes of point of view, and so there will be endless rounds of arguments over the “best” when there is no universal measure for that. But that would at least not be in violation of this RfC, unlike the status quo. Strebe (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Exactly, I am not saying the CIA map has to be used, I'm saying the current map needs to go, and that based on the RfC we can use the CIA world factbook one until someone proposes something better. That said, I think we have many maps that are violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and no one has addressed it because they either don't know, or feel solving the problem would be too much work/too disruptive to the project. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::No the RFC basically says to use a map that that fits Wikipedia's policies, and that US govermental maps could fits that definition in some cases. It doesn't give permission to replace a bad map with another bad map.
However it appears the consensus is for the new map, which is something that would support it's use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Just to clarify, we are replacing a bad map with a map from the U.S. Government. While the U.S. map might have a bias POV, it is not original research or a synthesis of sources created by an editor as far as I can tell. The RfC allows U.S. map in some cases, so it would be an improvement over what we have. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Editors creating content isn't synth, otherwise articles would be synth. We have a bad map that's outdated, it's going to be replaced with a bad map that shows the single POV of the US government. Wikipedia uses many, many editor created maps, and they are viewed as acceptable. Some are worse than others but the creation of maps is still very acceptable. The RFC doesn't say anywhere that editor made maps are unacceptable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::From WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. WP:SYNTH is about drawing a conclusion that is not found in any single WP:RELIABLE source. Like any other content, a map could be synth or could be acceptable. The map under debate for replacement is synth: It takes from this source and from that source to construct a view its author favors. Strebe (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes the old map is bad, that was the second sentence of my last comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{Comment}} The current map is under CC license stating "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." The map is claiming to be a direct product of the U.S. government, despite being modified. This is a misrepresentation, and part of why I would classify this map as misinformation, not just synthesis or original research. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The only change that appears to have been made was changing the capital of Kazakhstan, which was reverted later on. Admittedly it would have been better to upload the map with the changed capital separately, but as it was reversed calling it misinformation seems a bit strong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Can I ask what is so important about my acceptance? I have already stated hours ago[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geography#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250403105100-GeogSage-20250403060300] that consensus appear to be for using the new map. I dont mind answering questions about my position, but is there a need for so much detail? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Fair, sorry. Just trying to make sure we're not making changes that could lead back to disputes later. If you find a better map please propose it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::My proposals don't seem acceptable, I'll continue to support alternative maps. If later on there is a better alternative then consensus might change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

File:1730 Stoopendaal Map of the World in two Hemispheres - Geographicus - WereltCaert-stoopendaal-1730.jpg and geocentric conceptions of the solar system.]]

• Given this discussion is about the "Fundamentals" section, I had a browse through the web for what different sites used to introduce Geography. Of those, I thought [https://louis.pressbooks.pub/humangeography/chapter/1/ this book] had a good idea in using the 1730 Stoopendaal Map of the World (right). Our article says "Geographers study the Earth's spatial and temporal distribution of phenomena, processes, and features as well as the interaction of humans and their environment". The 1730 map is a sort of world map, keeping that aspect. It also provides emphasis on the tropics and artic circles, which is an example of Earth's spatial and temporal phenomena distributed across different portions of the earth. It has ships, providing symbols of the interaction of humans and their environment, and one of the key purposes of maps. (I also appreciate to some extent the obviously unfinished map, as well as depicting different conceptions of the solar system. These feel like symbols of geography as an evolving science, although this is a bit more abstract.) This sort of more complex image seems a better way to illustrate the concept of geographic fundamentals. CMD (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is an interesting point, and I could possibly get behind it. I will point out, though, that the Stoopendahl map was an anachronism in its own time, presumably created more for nostalgia than to portray the state of European knowledge. The progenitors from the 17th century, such as from Visscher, would be better I should think. I’ve also mooted the idea of a map of an invented terrain constructed for didactic purposes, but I didn’t find any easily available that seemed to do the job well. There’s an 18th century map by Homann made for this, but this is the English article, not German. Strebe (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::Created to support Spanish ambitions to my understanding, but I'm presenting it as an example of my thoughts (illustrating "Geographers study the Earth's spatial and temporal distribution of phenomena, processes, and features as well as the interaction of humans and their environment") rather than saying it has to be that map. I also thought of a more abstract or invented map, but didn't see any in the examples I was looking at other than very stylised globes which felt more decorative than informative. I think an English map is preferable but not a dealbreaker, so if you have one in mind please add it here? CMD (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::File:Space-time prism 1500x1125.png diagram of a space-time prism, and on the left is a map of the potential path area for two different time budgets.{{Harvnb|Allen|2019}}]]

:::There are all kinds of maps for space/time, especially if we don't want to show the whole world, attached a map as an example. Fundamentally though, I think a map showing contemporary borders is useful. From a purely functional standpoint, political maps are one of the most basic and fundamental things we use in geography and I think failing to include one that is more up to date would be detrimental. When teaching human geography, I've been taught to start with a current map of the place we're discussing. I'm not against using historic maps, the article has several I have added and at least one that I uploaded myself, but these do not offer the same utility as a modern map. If needed, I can make something in Arc but I'd like a consensus on which boundaries to use first. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::This article isn't really discussing a place, it's discussing a concept. I'd be happy with a contemporary map that illustrated different aspects of geography, I raised that specific one as an example it seemed the best from various hits I found online. CMD (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Looks like [https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/15210980 the map I was thinking of] was by Seutter, not Homann. (They have very similar styles.) Strebe (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Boggs eumorphic projection SW.JPG

• The close mentioned WP:PERTINENCE, and WP:NPOV as being considerations. To me that would heavily favour using a topographic map, if a map is to be used. Per WP:PERTINENCE {{TQ|Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative.}} and per WP:WEIGHT {{tq|Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.}}

:When there are so many competing political maps from differing major powers which contradict our best way to represent all significant viewpoints is simply not to go there. Further a map with borders simply doesn't have any significance or relevance to the section that the maps are placed in. While the close does state that we shouldn't rule maps in or out by virtue of the them being produced by the US government, that does not mean we should default to using US government maps either. We simply don't need to and a map with borders adds nothing more to the section than a map with no borders (e.g., Boggs eumorphic projection which are excellent resources as they are released with free licenses). TarnishedPath^talk 11:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::First to clarify, the image you linked is a mosaic of satellite images, not a Topographic map. Second, human geography is just as relevant to the discipline as physical geography, so showing human geographic features makes just as much sense as showing natural ones. Based on this comment, I moved the map to the section on branches were it is much more relevant then general fundamentals, and tried to improve the caption to better link it to the text. I also deleted the purely political map, in favor of the one showing physical features that also had borders on it. I think this placement in the article looks better, is a bit more logical, and reducing the number of images makes the article a bit cleaner. A map of countries is extremely important to the concept of geography, and if we can't show countries on the main geography page, then there are some serious site wide discussions we need to have about maps on the project overall. The most common approach I've seen to teaching World regional Geography is to start with a political map, and country names and location are one of the common things that come to mind for average people when they think of geography. As for the projection we use, the Boggs eumorphic is fine, I'm more of a Winkel tripel projection fan myself. The issue of projection is another serious thing that needs to be discussed, especially as they relate to thematic maps used on the project. We can use the Boggs eumorphic projection to show sovereign states as well as satellite images. There are literally volumes of literature on map ethics, best practices, and conventions that are essentially ignored on Wikipedia. I'd really like to set some sort of basic cartographic standards and apply them consistently across the project, including which boundaries and projections are appropriate in various contexts. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od|2}}{{A note|Just noting that:}}

• The RfC closer didn't say anything about which map to use. Their close comment doesn't tell us anything that we didn't know, i.e., the use or non-use of any specific map should be done on a case-by-case basis taking into account relevant policies and guidelines, including but not limited to WP:PRIMARY, WP:PERTINENCE, and WP:NPOV.
• The map that was added violates NPOV (that's what the discussions, including the one at NPOVN, are about).
• The map that was removed is the exact copy of the 2016 CIA version (this was noted prior to its removal).
• The other map was also removed without discussion.
• All the alternatives have been rejected and the goalposts keep constantly changing to keep the POV map.
• The pov tag, which was initially added by myself to the pov map and accidentally left behind when {{u|Cdjp1}} restored the stable maps, was also removed without addressing the issue. M.Bitton (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

We just got a tag by @ZergTwo stating the Sub-disciplines section has to many pictures. There is one stand alone picture that I just moved to the section, the rest are galleries. This tag comes after @Vsmith has changed the galleries from "mode="packed-overlay"" to "mode="packed"", with an example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geography&diff=prev&oldid=1284127068 here]. I'm the one who changed the mode to Overlay about a year or two ago, but wasn't going to argue if someone didn't like them who has been on the page as long as Vsmith. That said, these galleries have been on the page since at least [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geography&oldid=152700839 2007], and were added by @AlexD (I don't think they're active but thought I'd tag them.) Before this, these were simple bulleted lists, and I think the gallery is an improvement overall to that. Opening this talk page to how to handle the tag posted by ZergTwo. I hope that this page can be nominated as a good or featured article soon, so welcome the close attention and feedback it is getting recently. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)