Talk:Reversed map

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Weasel Words / No sources 2 McArthur's Universal Corrective Map of the World 3 Ambiguous statement 4 conventions = good 5 Redirection 6 Teaching 7 Map Outline

[edit] Weasel Words / No sources

This article is full of weasel sentences that, at the very least, need to be sourced:

• Some people believe that the notion that North goes at the top of a map is entirely arbitrary, and only convention makes reversed maps less common.

Who Believes that?

• Indeed, many maps exaggerate the northern hemisphere, sometimes as much as 60% over the southern hemisphere, leading some to claim that these maps are "North-Centric" and that they are biased to depict northern countries as more powerful and more important than countries in the southern hemisphere [citation needed ].

Which maps, who claims the maps are North-Centric, and who is biased?

• Others argue that due to the rotation of the Earth and the angular momentum caused by it there is a distinct "up" and hence it is "up" on most modern maps.

Who argues that?

Latitude0116 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess this mistake comes from the fact that the inhabited Northern hemisphere goes much further than the inhabited Southern hemisphere. People rarely bother to put Antarctica on political maps, so the maps appear to have a Northern bias. In fact, they only have an anti-antarctic bias. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

These are worse than weasel sentences; they are outright false! Who wrote that rubbish? -- 219.89.146.189 14:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start paying professional fact checkers to write your "encyclopedia" for you, rather than depending on open-source anarchists and other random strangers. 71.217.51.77 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is the "you" you are addressing here? The volunteer editors who collaboratively are creating this encyclopedia? In any case, if you had cared to check, you'd have seen that the contentious statements had been removed three weeks ago. --Lambiam^Talk 19:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone should check their facts rather than commenting in an anarchistic and randomly strange manner. Maybe even provide sources to bolster any contention? I believe this is what is being referred to: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]--Rfsmit 01:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McArthur's Universal Corrective Map of the World

Has anyone heard of this? I'm wondering if it's significant enough to warrant inclusion... Leon 06:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguous statement

“They are used in other parts of the world as tools for teaching critical thinking.” Other parts than which part? —C.P. 17:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] conventions = good

I never thought that the orientation of a MAP would become politicized. I mean, we do have conventions for a reason, don't we? Jwigton 01:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection

Are there any objections to having South Up Map and Rotated Map redirect here? --MathewBrooks 13:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teaching

Added a "citation needed" note. Orcoteuthis (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map Outline

Upside down as it's supposed to be, yes, but back to front as well? Surely the map needs to be flipped horizontally? - JVG (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)