Talk:South-up map orientation/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

As the creator of the map, it is my understanding that the McArthur map was the first south-up map commercially produced in marketable quantities (ie. 5000 per print run) anywhere in the world. This has never been challenged and has often been quoted with no challenge. It made the news (TV and newspapers) in 1979 its birth year, and was used by the Australian head of state, the Governor-General in his 1979 address to the Australian nation because of the originality of the idea. Because it was the first map to question the north-up convention, it is significant enough to warrant inclusion. - Stuart McArthur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.31.128 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 7 January 2016‎

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)

They are used in Geography textbooks in Japanese schools - The McArthur map has appeared inside the cover of a popular high school textbook.

The McArthur map has also been used for teaching relativity at a Paris university. I have the letter of request for permission.

I also have copies of many of the books that have published the McArthur map, with my permission. Most of the uses of the map are to demonstrate lateral thinking, relativity of position, or the ambiguity of conventional cartographical perspectives.

- Stuart McArthur

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)

It is not political and is not anti-convention. Conventions exist but that does not mean the origin of the convention should not be questioned or explored. Choosing the top point of any sphere will always be an arbitrary decision. A point was chosen and we have become used to it, but that convention is not based on any science - it was just an arbitrary choice. It's important and eye-opening for that to be understood, as the questioning of conventions is a worthy process in itself.

- Stuart McArthur

Redirection

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

Teaching

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

I have a Japanese high school geography textbook where the McArthur map is included for teaching purposes.

- Stuart McArthur

Hi Stuart, do you happen to know the title of the geography textbook and year of publication? If so, I think this could be cited in support of how south-up maps are used by educators. Arlen 04:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlenmoller (talk • contribs)

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)

slight problem

I think this page is making me dizzy since almost everything is wrong way up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.167.146.130 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The psychological significance of reversed maps

I recently posted some information on a series of published social psychology studies concerning reversed maps that I co-authored with several colleagues (Meier, Moller, Chen, and Riemer-Peltz, 2011). Several days after adding the content the lead author on the paper was contacted by a PhD student in geography from the University of Cal Berkeley asking for a copy of the article -- a development that helped reinforce my confidence that the content I posted was indeed relevant to the entry for "Reversed Map."

I later made two additional edits. Edit #2 added a link to a "Rotatable Map Tool" -- an addition/edit that also seemed very relevant, yet for entirely different reasons than the above add/edit concerning the Meier et al (2011) article. Edit #3 added a link to a Forum Thread encouraging Google to return the free "Rotating Maps" tool to Google Maps, another topic which I would think many, many people interested in the utility of the "reversed map" concept might appreciate knowing about; again, this was a reason entirely independent of edit #1 and edit #2. Each time, I documented with a sentence or two a description of the edit.

Then on April 1st, Gscshoyru (who seems like a knowledgable content editor from his/her wikipedia account page) essentially deleted all 3 of my entries in one fell swoop, and without any explanation beyond "Reverted edits by Arlenmoller to last version by Ashmoo (GLOO)". There was also a note on my Talk page without any elaboration on his or her rationale for reverting the edits.

I realize that I'm relatively new to Wikipedia contributing, but I consider myself a community member with something to offer, and this kind of sweeping revision without explanation is very amotivating for my future participation. I think each of the 3 edits I made were relevant, and each for distinct reasons. At the very least, I would like the opportunity to dialogue with Gscshoyru about this further before this matter is settled.

I'd also like to note that the Meier et al. (2011) article included a study that literally involved "reversing" the orientation of a map to see the psychological effect on participants. How can this not be relevant to a Wikipedia entry titled "Reversed Map"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlenmoller (talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Arlenmoller (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsensical title

This article is misnamed. The literature does not use the term “reversed map”, and “reversed” does not mean what this article tries to describe. The literature barely even uses “upside down map”, since the whole notion is barely remarkable. Maps at the scale of cities are produced in any orientation. World maps conventionally place north at the top, but even then there are plenty of exception. It’s a frivolous article with an incorrect title. At least the title needs to get fixed, assuming the article itself should remain. Strebe (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

North-South 90° tilted.

Change the world map by tilting that map 90° in such a manner that the direction of rotation corresponds to the direction a ball would move forward. That pertains to an orientation where it can be clearly seen that the space regions for canada, russia, europe and argentina are definitely a LOT smaller than on that NS/SN orientation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.18.169 (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Availability of South-up maps

The article makes the following claim: "South-up maps are commonly available as novelties or sociopolitical statements in southern hemisphere locales, particularly Australia". However in my 47 years of living in Australia I have never seen one of these maps for sale. In fact I wasn't even aware that they existed until reading this article. I have talked to a number of other Australian and they aren't aware of them either. It seems to me that if they were commonly available - particularly in Australia - then common Australians should know about them but apparently they don't. Considering the fact that this claim has no reference I think, at the very least, that the words "particularly Australia" should be removed.

Ciao for now!

FillsHerTease (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

When the McArthur map was first published in 1979, the Governor General of Australia used it during his address to the nation on January 26th, Australia Day, 1979. That video is available.

The map is also available in Melbourne Library. It was also the subject of a current affairs TV item in 1979.

It was readily available in many bookstores and all airports and central city locations in the 1980s. After that, other versions of the upside down map appeared, and the McArthur map became less popular. An upside down map can still easily be found in map stores and souvenir stores throughout Australia.

- Stuart McArthur

South Korean propaganda maps

The text now claims South Korea put south at the top for “decades” in order to show South Korea above North Korea. The citation is a few seconds of a clip from a propaganda movie. A couple of observations: The map in the video clip is a north-up map that rotates, apparently for cinematic effect, to be upside down. The clip itself is very weak evidence of the claimed practice. I poked around on the Web looking for other examples, but found none. Can we please find something more convincing? Thanks. Strebe (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There is little to no evidence of this, precisely because it is outright false. This needs to be deleted.(1.238.98.167 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

I can't find reliable sources supporting the claim, so I removed it. Anyone is free to re-add it providing a convincing source. Gap9551 (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Confusion in the section on psychological significance and research

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I appreciate Strebe's intentions by reverting edits because of the specific references to authors by name, however, I disagree with his assertion that the content of the section revised included details irrelevant to the article (See below). 05:15, 10 December 2015‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,992 bytes) (+466)‎ . . (Reverted reversion of all intervening edits. Studies cannot be cited by author name and include details irrelevant to the article. Undid revision 694583679 by Arlenmoller (talk)) (undo | thank) A key point we are wrestling with here is that the psychological research literature suggests that a more basic verticality bias, one that exists entirely independent of maps, is important to understand in this context. I believe the fact that researchers find cross-culturally replicable empirical evidence for associating up with good and down with bad is important to the significance and meaning of "south-up map orientation" and upside down maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlenmoller (talk • contribs) 14:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, as a primary source, this research properly does not even warrant citation, let alone so extensively. In order for it to carry any real weight, secondary sources that cite it need to be cited. Please see the reasons for this policy as given in the WP:PRIMARY explanation. Primary sources are hard to use properly. Second, I infer you (Arlenmoller) are one of the authors of the cited research. That fact increases the hazards of misuse, both as WP:OR and as WP:COI. To be clear, I have no problem with the basic thesis, but as an editorial matter, the amount of material and the gravity afforded to that thesis in this Wikipedia article are outsized. The description needs to be pared back to something close to what it was before. I tried to address what I think you're getting at, but certainly feel free to make a correction of a few words. Strebe (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

We disagree on whether these two peer-reviewed journal articles are important to this page, I believe they are *extremely* important to understanding the significance of these maps. If it's important to you that the entry include a secondary source that cites them both, we can include a reference to the following paper published in 2015, which summarizes the extensive literature on embodied cognition: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4531208/

I think your intentions are well placed, but your edits in this case are doing the community a disservice. Your earlier edits not only severally reduced the description of science related to the significance of "south-up" or "upside down" maps, you also reversed the directionality of the effect, directionality that was established with over a dozen experiments conducted by different authors and published in at least three peer reviewed papers. I can't invest more time going back and forth with you over this, but I urge you to consider consulting with someone who has advanced training in social psychology or any social science before making further edits to this subsection titled "Psychological significance and research." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlenmoller (talk • contribs) 00:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the text describing specific studies and left only the key conceptual take homes from this literature. This info was removed: "In one experiment illustrating this psychological and behavioral bias, when an imaginary city map was oriented such that north was at the top of the page, the average participant expressed a preference for living north of that city's center, but when the imaginary city map was oriented such that south was at the top of the page, the average preference was neutral. In a second experiment, the average participant guessed that a hypothetical person described as rich would live significantly north of the city's center (higher on the page), whereas someone described as poor would likely live significantly south of the city's center (lower on the page)."

“We disagree on whether these two peer-reviewed journal articles are important to this page…” No, it is not clear to me that we disagree. My point is that •it does not matter•. As I explained before, directing you to the policy pages, this material is •not fit for Wikipedia• as presented. It does not matter if it is “true” or “highly relevant” or “peer-reviewed”. Please familiarize yourself with the policies, and quit trying to snow me with non sequiturs like “consider consulting with someone who has advanced training in social psychology or any social science before making further edits to this subsection”. You have no idea what my understanding is, and my understanding has no relevance. Your understanding has no relevance. It is not about our opinions. It is about whether the secondary literature considers this work to be WP:NOTABLE and about how to present it in an encylopædic way. The Montoro et al article you referenced has no relevance whatever. It doesn’t even address the notion of physical maps. I have reverted your edit yet again. You are welcome to “reverse the directionality” or repair my text however you think matches the science, but the mention needs to be brief, must not digress into the more general topic of vertical space cognition and its relationship to emotion or value judgment, and must not read like a research paper or abstract. After familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia policies, if you still feel there’s a problem here that you cannot remedy by making a few changes in wording, then feel free to file a dispute. Strebe (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have filed a dispute to help us resolve this issue. We disagree. First, I disagree with your assessment that the position of south up or down is "trivial" (your sentence: "A map's orientation is a trivial technical matter and therefore the cartographic literature barely discusses it."). The point I was trying to make by including 3 sentences and 3 peer-reviewed sources in this subsection titled "Psychological significance" is that the reason some people find "South-up maps" interesting and meaningful has to do with deeply ingrained associations we have between up/good and down/bad. To me, the research from social psychology establishing the generalizability of these associations seems very important to understanding and appreciating south-up maps. Arlenmoller (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

We continue to talk past each other, Arlenmoller. “Trivial technical matter” does not mean “trivial psychological matter”. That’s why it reads technical rather than psychological, and it’s why the following sentence says, “as a psychological matter, however…” in order to contrast with the trivial technical matter. It •is• a trivial technical matter: Turn the map upside down. Done. I cannot grasp why the verbal contrast is not apparent to you or how you misread technical as psychological, but if you have suggestions to improve the verbiage, by all means, do so. As for the papers you keep trying to include, the only one of relevance seems to be Meier et al, and that is already cited. You cannot digress into the wider range of up/good down/bad psychology because that is not what this article is about. If you think the broader psychology warrants a separate article, then by all means, go create one. Strebe (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

My concerns with your using the words "trivial technical matter" are two fold. First, you wrote this sentence as the introduction to a subsection of this entry with the subtitle "Psychological significance." If your point was to let readers know that it is relatively easy to physically turn a map upside down, that technical point may be better placed in another subsection (though I also dispute the assertion that it is easy/trivial to create a well designed south-up oriented map). The bigger issue is that I believe many casual readers may assume that the concept of south-up maps is nothing more than an arbitrary convention (i.e., the convention began due to chance, and has no meaningful ramifications), a novelty/gag that doesn't deserve deeper scrutiny. That is, "trivial technical matter" can easily be misunderstood as "trivial, (and simply a) technical matter"). So I think the language used risks reinforcing a popular misconception. Arlenmoller (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

To the issue of citing more than one source, I need to remind you that my original contribution to this entry cited only the Meier et al. journal article, and that *you* suggested that I should not cite only the primary source but should find a secondary source that cited it in the context of a wider literature. Here's what you wrote: "A couple of things. First, as a primary source, this research properly does not even warrant citation, let alone so extensively. In order for it to carry any real weight, secondary sources that cite it need to be cited. I did the leg work to find those secondary sources (and there were multiple secondary sources to choose from) to be responsive to your early comments.Arlenmoller (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I will wait for the third opinion before I address anything else, but your interpretation of my request is again a misunderstanding. I’m not talking about papers that cite the Meiers paper in the context of up/down psychology. I’m talking about sources (not necessarily research papers) that discuss (not just cite) the Meiers conclusions in the context of maps, which is what this Wikipedia article is about. For example, if there were cartographic literature that drew on the findings, or cartographic texts that discuss them, or lectures by some other WP:RELIABLE figure, or news articles that render the topic WP:NOTABLE, then they can be discussed with proper care that they are not given WP:UNDUE weight. Strebe (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

More importantly, I still feel like you are missing the thrust of why I believe some reference (at least one sentence) to the more general research literature on verticality and valence are value added to this entry (you wrote: "You cannot digress into the wider range of up/good down/bad psychology because that is not what this article is about."). What I am trying to explain is that I believe the entire reason that there is an entry for "south-up map orientation" hinges on this more general finding. Maps are typically hung or held vertically, and the general human tendency to associate up with good at an automatic and often nonconscious level, makes south/up orientation interesting and meaningful (and different from say "an upside down cat" or "an upside down car," which don't have their own wikipedia entries). Also, the fact that the average person is biased to believe real estate is more valuable if it's at the top of a map, but that this effect disappears if a compass illustration on the map suggests south is up and north is down, this has real practical significance that is absolutely tied to "south-up map orientation." For most people, real estate is the most expensive decision/investment they will ever make in their lives, and north-south orientation and language produce irrational bias related to this important decision. You (or an earlier editor) stripped all the discussion of this research out of the entry, and I think that was a mistake. I believe 3 sentences on this in the subsection titled "Psychological significance" is not excessive or superfluous, and would be value added for many readers. Arlenmoller (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. The discussion has been lengthy and not concise. Can one or both of the editors state a concise question for which a third opinion is an answer? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert McClenon. The dispute is left versus right edits. So, the concise question is, “Left or right”?

The reason the edit is in dispute is because I believe the left is unencyclopædic, discursive, cites irrelevant material, and uses terms readers are unlikely to be familiar with, to no benefit. I think the edit runs afoul of WP:PRIMARY, WP:COI, and WP:ORIGINAL. (Earlier versions of “left” were even longer.) I have no reason to suppose the primary paper cited (Meier et al) is unreliable; nor do I dispute its premise or conclusions; nor, despite its WP:PRIMARY status and promotion by one of its authors, do I think it should be omitted. However, no secondary source exists to provide context or WP:WEIGHT, and in that absence, we can’t be going on about it at length as if it is a solid, accepted phenomenon. Hence the edit on the right. Saying anything more amounts to WP:PROMOTION. Strebe (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert McClenon. As Strebe states above, the gist of the disagreement concerns how much detail concerning related psychology research is appropriate to include. I'd like to see two sentences dedicated to this, including reference to a related term in social psychology ("the north-south bias"), and discussion of a more general, cross-cultural association between verticality and valence as the basis for caring about south-up map orientation. Dozens of studies have replicated this verticality-valence finding and it has been summarized in scholarly chapters. I believe Strebe is not giving readers enough credit, and I believe the extra information is both relevant and valuable. Arlenmoller (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The diff in question doesn't even mention left and right. The lede paragraph does mention that a traditional map orientation has north at the top and east at the right and left at the west. Therefore a south-up orientation, as a trivial technical matter, has east at the left and west at the right. So what is the question? Is it whether to discuss the psychological issues involved? Certainly the psychological issues should be involved, because otherwise there would be no reason why this orientation is unusual although entirely correct. Please re-restate the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe that by Strebe characterizing the question as “Left or right?” he simply intended to direct your attention to two competing edits linked here: left versus right. Given the topic, I can see how the words "left/right" are ambiguous; e.g., you might expect positions on the right-hand side of a map to be preferred, but I can tell you based on my understanding of the research literature that there is not a corresponding left/right and west/east bias, at least not of the same magnitude as has been observed for up/down and north/south. Importantly, the up/down bias has been *very* well documented in psychology. Strebe contends that this research literature is "irrelevant." Arlenmoller (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

To help validate my claim, here is a short summary of this literature written by Kacinik (2014): "The validity of underlying conceptual metaphors like GOOD IS UP has been shown in several experiments demonstrating how different concepts and psychological states (i.e., power, affect, the divine, and even real estate) map onto the vertical axis to demonstrate that UP is indeed generally associated with GOOD (Meier and Robinson, 2004, 2006; Schubert, 2005; Giessner and Schubert, 2007; Meier et al., 2007a,b, 2011)." Arlenmoller (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, earlier Strebe requested "news articles that render the topic WP:NOTABLE" and while I think it's absurd to consider a news article a more valid source than an extensive peer-reviewed literature, I will acquiesce and point to at least one news article summarizing this research: Chicago Tribune (March 18th, 2011). Real estate perceptions: Mapping north vs. south. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-18/classified/ct-mre-0320-home-front-podmolik-20110318_1_perceptions-housing-prices-assistant-professor Arlenmoller (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Arlenmoller, I’m having trouble viewing your engagement as sincere. Nobody implied anything like “a news article [is] a more valid source than an extensive peer-reviewed literature”. You quite deliberately left out “cartographic literature that drew on the findings, or cartographic texts that discuss them, or lectures by some other WP:RELIABLE figure,” prefacing what your excerpted. Leaving out the bulk of what I wrote is cherry-picking, and ridiculing your own disingenuous packaging of what I wrote is a straw man. You’ve also consistently avoided engaging the Wikipedia policies I’ve cited at length. This is •not• an academic discussion. The academic aspects are irrelevant, and your sophistry isn’t relevant to how an encyclopedia is constructed. What goes into this article will be encyclopædic, WP:NOTABLE, WP:RELIABLE, and will carry due WP:WEIGHT. It will not necessarily be your own apparently inflated notion of your own research’s importance. I again encourage you to study those Wikipedia policies so that you understand what’s really going on here. Strebe (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Strebe, this is why we'll benefit from getting a 3rd opinion. I also am having trouble viewing your engagement as sincere. I believe your original edits were ham fisted and that once called out on this you've become too defensive to engage rationally. It is disingenuous to argue that content specific expertise is irrelevant to writing a strong encyclopedic article, in particular, an article that relates to a research literature. I'm sure that you have areas of content specific expertise, but I am questioning your confidence that this literature is not notable, reliable, or carrying due weight. Have you read this literature? Please consider allowing a neutral 3rd person to weigh in. Arlenmoller (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Because of the back-and-forth, I do not see a clear concise question. I will not be responding, but will leave this for another volunteer. My own guess is that it won't be answered within six days, because the discussion isn't concise. Try moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, where the moderator will insist on being concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Towards a concise question

It seems you two editors need assistance in formulating a clear statement of the question or issue here. I am willing to attempt assistance, if both of you agree. The basis for any hope of success is that I am quite analytic, and (if you will be patient and work with me) I can quite likely uncover the unstated assumptions and such that result in your current divergent views. However, to get there you may have to put up with a lot of seemingly inane questions. This would be not to determine "who is right", but to clarify your divergent views and place them in the context of a mutually acceptable framework. I warn you that this process might not be easy, and I am likely to get on your case if I feel you are not working on it at least as hard as I am. (But then, if it was easy you two would have already worked it out, right?) Are both of you agreeable? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm agreeable. Thanks for offering to lend a hand. Arlenmoller (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the gist of our question is about how much detail is appropriate to include in the subsection of this page titled "Psychological significance," and relatedly, how many references to cite, and are those references notable, reliable, and carrying due weight. Arlenmoller (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Strebe: are you in, or out? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's do it. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Great! Now if you would be so kind to review the previous discussion and provide a short statement as to what you think the question is. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The question is: Left edit versus right edit. What’s in dispute is the tone of the writing, the aptness of citing literature that does not directly pertain to south-up orientation in maps, and the weight given to the topic of the psychology of south-up maps. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to modify the tone of writing, and I think some alternative to the current left edit versus right edit is probably preferable. From my perspective, the heart of the matter is whether the psych literature is sufficiently notable, reliable, and carrying due weight to warrant inclusion in this entry on "south-up map orientation." My position is that 3 references summarized in about two sentences would be appropriate. Perhaps I can share several sources in the psych literature and we can discuss the appropriateness of each? Alternatively, I'm willing to go along with another method as J. Johnson sees fit. Arlenmoller (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. I am examining your statements, and considering what points need to be worked out, and how. I might have suggestions tomorrow. Hang tight. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Strebe and Arlenmoller: I have carefully examined both of your statements, and find that they have little to nothing in common. You two are basically talking right past each other. So I have also studied your previous discussions, and find the same characterization applicable generally. In particular, Strebe seems inclined to a wholly cartographic point of view, where the psychological aspects seem rather extraneous, whilst Arlenmoller is focused specifically on the psychological aspects. The problems here are exacerbated in that the section at issue ("Psychological significance") is the sole significant section of this article, and yet is only one-quarter of the size of the lede. However, despite these problems I believe there is a prospect of resolution.

Strebe has questioned the notability of certain references, but I think it would be more useful to consider: what is the notability of this topic? I believe Strebe would concur with the wording (because they're your words?) of the lede: "Because orienting north toward the top is a matter of convention rather than correctness, a south-up map is technically just as correct as north-up." This implies that north-up is just "a matter of convention", and just "a trivial technical matter." As such, the significance of south-up maps seems little more than novelties, and the topic would seem quite non-notable.

However, even a little research on Google Scholar shows what seem to be very significant aspects, concerning the psychology of how people interpret maps, and how these may have political repercussions. (E.g., is it significant, to Europeans or Africans, whether Europe is shown, on some maps, to be bigger than Europe?)

So I put a question (Q1) to both of you: does this topic have any notability (for these or any other reasons) beyond cartographic novelty? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, J. Johnson (JJ). A1: In my response to User:Sandstein below, I explained my doubts about the notability of this topic, given the lack of literature. Two years ago on this Talk page I questioned this article’s standing, up in the section titled, “Nonsensical title”. The paper by Meier et al is about all there is, but its applicability to this article is murky because this article is about world maps whereas that research is about large scale maps. It is WP:SYNTH to generalize the paper’s results to the bulk of this article, and in any case, that research is a WP:PRIMARY source. Meanwhile, without that research, this article has little useful to cite beyond the unassailable fact that some parties are publishing world maps oriented with south up.

The article could have notability, in the sense that there is plenty that could be written about the topic if scholars took an interest in it, but at present, practically anything would be WP:OR or not be WP:VERIFIABLE. Even the article title is hokey because the literature has no name for these artifacts. Hence the many entries on this Talk page questioning the point of the article. Strebe (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Stebe: Let's get something straight: the "many entries on this Talk page" are not, as you state, "questioning the point of the article." They are mostly about sources, or unsupported statements. The only questioning of the point of the article is your comment at #Nonsensical title that "[i]t’s a frivolous article with an incorrect title." The thesis of your comment was: "This article is misnamed", the name then being "Reversed maps". Presumably this problem was fixed when you subsequently renamed the article. To now repurpose your comment is dubious, and to misstate the support for such a view is not an acceptable mode of argument. If you wish to state now that the article is frivolous, that would be one thing to consider. However...

Please note: the question I put is whether this article has any notability (beyond cartographic novelty). You state the article could have notability, which implies that it does not. But this is not a direct answer to the question. (And invoking various Wikipedic objections amounts to avoidance of the question.) You claim a lack of literature, but I note from an earlier comment that your sense of "literature" seems to be solely the cartographic literature. Please re-read my paragraph immediately preceding my question, and then note that the question is not limited to cartographical notability, but goes beyond cartography. As I previously said, a quick search on Google Scholar turned up a claim that "north-up" has a political ramification. Is such a claim notable enough to warrant an article? (And as the score sheets used to say: "make no stray marks outside the bubble." :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, J. Johnson (JJ). To your (Q1): does this topic have any notability, beyond cartographic novelty? I believe the topic has notability from a number of perspectives, including general interest as evidenced by south-up oriented maps being sold my multiple map publishers, related popular media coverage, political ramifications and discussion in scholarly works, and both primary and secondary sources in experimental social psychology. A few examples of sources speaking to notability include:

(1) Rethinking the Power of Maps - by Denis Wood http://odtmaps.com/detail.asp?product_id=RethinkingPOM

(2) How Maps Change Things by Ward Kaiser (2013) http://odtmaps.com/detail.asp?product_id=howmapschangethings

(3) Nelson and Simmonds (2009, p. 7): “To test this possibility, we manipulated the orientation of the map that participants were asked to judge. Approximately half the participants saw a right-side-up map of Florida, with north oriented toward the top of the page. The remaining participants saw an upside-down map of Florida, with north oriented toward the bottom of the page.” http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/DPlab/papers/publishedPapers/Nelson_2009_On%20Southbound%20Ease%20and%20Northbound%20Fees.pdf Secondary source: https://hbr.org/2010/06/in-marketing-south-beats-north/

(4) Meier et al. (2011, p. 4): "Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, the control condition (N = 26) or the experimental condition (N = 24). Participants in the experimental condition were presented with the same map, but with cardinal directions in the opposite locations." http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/03/15/1948550611401042 Arlenmoller (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, those are intriguing sources. Especially the first two, as they seem to address the political aspects, which I think would be notable. But just two sources would be a bit thin. To be persuasive might require more sources showing that maps have a political impact. I don't want to get too far ahead until Strebe clarifies his position on the question, but I can anticipate we might want to see more sources about the political uses of cartography generally, and map orientation particularly. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, these were just a few sources related to notability in general (beyond cartographic novelty), the list is by no means exhaustive. I would be in favor of adding a subsection dedicated to "political significance" if another editor is willing to take this on. However, my own area of expertise and interest is the short subsection on "psychological significance." From my perspective, the fact that there are scholarly sources from multiple disciplines speaking directly to "south-up map orientation" helps make the case for notability of the topic. Arlenmoller (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient showing to make an initial claim of notability. But before proceeding we need to hear from @Strebe: as to whether he agrees, or if this is the concise question that needs to be resolved. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

To now repurpose your comment is dubious… Sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about. My comment, verbatim, was, The literature barely even uses “upside down map”, since the whole notion is barely remarkable. Maps at the scale of cities are produced in any orientation. World maps conventionally place north at the top, but even then there are plenty of exception. It’s a frivolous article with an incorrect title. At least the title needs to get fixed, assuming the article itself should remain. If I have to explain how that translates into, “I doubt this article has sufficient notability,” or, explain how my comments to User:Sandstein also question the notability, then I just don’t have time. I’m interested in a good article, not in arguing about the conversations around it. Do what you want with the article; I can’t care that much.

And no, the problem was not fixed by renaming the article. I made the title accurate, but I did not make it correct. There’s no such thing as “correct” for a topic that is barely referred to, and when it is, is called by whatever more or less descriptive name strikes the author’s fancy. This should be evident when I changed the name of an article that had been around for eight years by that time, and no one even commented on it.

As a self-published agitator, Ward Kaiser is not WP:RELIABLE (see, for example, Monmonier’s comments), and Wood, while influential in some circles, has only rhetorical arguments but no studies, so y’all have your work cut out for you. Strebe (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's review why we are here. This discussion started (on 10 Dec.) because you (Strebe) object to, and have been persistently removing, content added by Arlenmoller (specifically in the section on "Psychological significance"). After going around the tree a few times without any progress towards resolution Robert McClenon stepped in (18 Dec., as requested), but he bowed out for lack of a "clear, concise question", which he attributed to "the back-and-forth" between you two editors. At that time I offered to assist in formulating a clear statement of the question or issue here, to which you both were agreeable. After collecting from both of you initial statements that had effectively no common issues I reviewed the rest of this discussion, and identified notability as a likely common issue. I then solicited your views on whether this topic has any notability.

Strebe, your response is not helpful. In three paragraphs you say nothing about whether (or not) the topic is notable, you merely point to a previous comment to Sandstein (next section), and complain that you don't have time to explain that comment, nor to translate a prior comment. You seem to think you have presented an argument - which I use in the old-fashioned sense of a list of points for consideration - but you are mostly just hand-waving; you have not responded directly to the question, but leave it to us to infer what you mean. This kind of beating about the bush wastes a lot of that time that you no longer have.

If you are no longer agreeable to resolving these issues - if your statement "[d]o what you want with the article" means that you are dropping all objections regarding any issues or edits on this article - then we could be done with this. In that case I would remind you that you should not be making edits, or reverting others' edits, to this article. That would be disruptive. I think it would be unfortunate if you walked, as some of the objections you raise (esp. regarding the sources) seem like they should be considered. But if you won't engage in discussion you have no basis for complaint if you are reverted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be satisfied if Strebe simply agreed to stop making edits to the subsection on "psychological significance," if he wants to continue making edits to other sections of the page in the future, this might be reasonable as he seems to have some expertise when it comes to the cartographic literature specifically (though, as he has noted many times, the topic of south-up maps is apparently scantly discussed in that cartographic literature -- at least, to this point). For what it's worth, I do feel this lengthy exchange will result in a version of a "psychological significance" subsection that is better in terms of style and tone than what I wrote earlier. Perhaps another editor(s) with expertise in political science will consider creating a subsection on "political significance" in the future, but I will leave that to those who know that literature better. Do I have an okay to make revisions to the "psychological significance" subsection now? Arlenmoller (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As Strebe is not willing to take the time resolve these issues he has no grounds for reverting anyone else's edits, or even to complain if his own edits are reverted. I would take that as an implicit okay for you to proceed. However, please note: there are policies and stuff that need to be heeded, so you might proceed cautiously. (We can discuss this as needed.) Note also that if you are not sure how to cobble stuff together you might try it out on your own Sandbox page. Or even on what we call the "Draft namespace". Also, I am about to propose that this article fully "re-imagined" and re-written, which could lead to major changes.

BTW, I have restored the 2011 discussion you deleted. Please note that we do not delete old discussions, even when concluded, unless they are moved to an archive. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I have reverted Strebe's last edit to the article, restoring it to where you left. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

---

@Strebe: As you have left this discussion of your objections to this article and the editing therein, have said you do not have time for this discussion (although you seemed to have time when the status quo was to retain your reversions), and have implied that you have abandoned your objections ("[d]o what you want"), it seems fair to conclude that have indeed abandoned your objections. In order to have closure on this, in a day or two I am going to close this entire discussion with that conclusion. While I encourage you to offer any comments for the improvement of this article, I also remind you that it would be disruptive to make edits, and especially reversions, that you are not willing to discuss. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not that I have abandoned my objections; it’s that I have abandoned defending my objections. It felt like we were arguing over what I had even said up to that point. Strebe (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see much argument here, in the sense of a list of points for consideration. As I said before (00:30, 1 Jan.): "You seem to think you have presented an argument ... but you are mostly just hand-waving; you have not responded directly to the question, but leave it to us to infer what you mean." You have not so much defended your objections, or even stated what those objections are, as you have kept waving at prior statements. What you have stated is not so much your objections, but that you have stated objections. Unfortunately, your previous comments lack a "clear, concise" statement of an issue. What you take as "arguing over what I had even said" is my trying to get you to make a definite statement of your objections. Lacking that, there is no issue to discuss, and your objections (what ever they are) have no standing here.

I see little prospect of success with this discussion, and so am closing it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Another third opinion

In this diff, I am of the view that the version by Strebe makes a number of very strong, very categorical assertions ("a trivial technical matter", "barely discusses it", "people equate up with good", "north-up orientation favors northern geographies") that - as much as they instinctively seem likely to be correct to me - I would be very surprised to see the scholarly literature bear out so unequivocally. On the other hand, the version by Altenmoller is not satisfactory either because it does not tell us what, if anything, research has shown about this matter. In other words, I don't think that either version is good encyclopedic content. This topic should be discussed in more detail than in one sentence, making clear which source has come to which conclusion, and where scholars differ.  Sandstein  10:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Strebe: in the following interposed comment (besides being more wall-of-text than is readily assimable) you're getting ahead of matters. You are arguing issues, where we do not yet have a mutually agreed upon statement of the issues. Let's put these comments on-hold until we are ready for them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Sandstein. I had wished for this not to be an academic debate, since that is not normally how Wikipedia disputes get resolved. The credentials of the parties involved normally would be irrelevant and this dispute ought to have been put to rest by referring to the standards of WP:NOTABLE, WP:SECONDARY, WP:VERIFIABLE, and WP:WEIGHT. But progress has been way too slow and, without pulling the expertise trump, it’s going to grind on for a lot longer for reason that will seem mysterious to the kind souls who have volunteered to help, and they likely will waste a lot of their time trying to dig up references that don’t exist.

Notice that I objected to the very existence of this article, two years ago up above in Talk:South-up map orientation#Nonsensical title. I corrected the title then, but didn’t bother trying to get the page removed. The reason that I objected is that the topic is not WP:NOTABLE. There is no literature. How do I know this? Because my expertise is in map projections. I write academic papers on that topic, a field in which I have been active for twenty-five years. The reason I can say “barely discusses it” is because I know the literature. What compels me to even mention my involvement in the field is that, while it’s easy to say such-and-such research exists, it’s impossible for anyone but an expert to say such-and-such literature does not exist. The only mentions of south-up maps in the cartographic literature are:

• Passing mentions that, as world maps, they occasionally crop up in southern nations, particularly Australia, as novelties or as political statements.
• Noting that, historically, maps have appeared in many orientations, including south-up. Some of these mentions are with respect to world maps; some are with respect to larger scale maps. Some of those mentions are erroneous in their authors’ evident belief that orientations that are not north-up are rare or remarkable and carry some hidden significance in the mapmakers’ thinking without apparently realizing just how many maps out there are •not• oriented north-up, and for mundane reasons that would be clear to those authors if they understood the context better.
• Noting that modern large-scale maps from independent sources (such as tourist maps or maps sponsored by the city itself) come, not uncommonly, in orientations that suit the local geography, including south-up.

Those mentions invariably simply note something; they do not rise to the level of research or analysis. In addition there is lots and lots of pop culture nonsense that cannot be cited because it consists largely of blog postings from people not deeply involved in mapmaking, or as promotional materials for… south-up maps.

“Trivial technical matter” is, I repeat, obvious. Turn the map “upside down”. Keep the labels right-side up. The end. Now, in point of fact, there are design elements that could change based on orientation. For example, if you have shaded relief, you may well want to adjust the lighting angle for the sun. However, there is no real literature on this topic, and the publicly available conversations between practicing cartographers on the topic is mixed in advice and conclusions. Other elements are not related to physics; merely, you might have graphics of some sort that must also get turned upside down and perhaps placed on opposite sides of the map in order to fit common practice and Western design sensibilities. But as far as the geographic features go, no, just turn the map around. Hence, no one has bothered addressing the topic specifically. It’s not notable.

Next, the psychology of local (real-estate, for example, as explored by the research conducted by the other party in this dispute) may well differ considerably from global when it comes to south-up. Meanwhile this article is predominately about the orientation of world maps, not local maps. While north=good, south=not-as-good might hold (even though top-of-map is usually not vertical, since few maps people look at are posted on walls), we cannot resort to WP:SYNTH to assume this. Maps, both global and local, have been produced in any arbitrary orientation ever since the first ones we have access to. There is also no historical context to the cited research. There may be many other factors and judgments in play—all of which I can speculate on ad nauseam, but there is no literature to even inform us about how rigorously the cited research applies to this article. All of this suggest to me that very little should be made of the topic. The more words devoted to it, the worse the WP:WEIGHT problem gets.

As for the other “sweeping statements”, those are meant to characterize the literature written by the other party to this dispute; they are nothing I feel any advocacy for. I don’t care exactly how the point is made as long as the words are pithy and accurate. I see no reason why there ought to be more than a sentence devoted to the topic. Keep in mind that, as a WP:PRIMARY source, the paper properly shouldn’t be cited at all—especially by its author as WP:COI—but since I hardly think the results are disputable, my objection is to the poor form of the excessive, academic, and self-important verbiage proposed by the other party when there is no secondary literature to frame the WP:WEIGHT of the findings, and when I dispute the very notability of this article’s topic. The article shouldn’t get into the broader psychology of up=good, down=bad at all; that is a topic for some other article.

To me, this dispute is purely about the tone, scope, and balance of a Wikipedia article so that it conforms to Wikipedia guidelines and its practices at large. It most emphatically is not a debate over the quality of the research the other party wants to cite, nor the particular words used to mention it as long as there aren’t many of them.

Strebe (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. But note that the earlier effort to resolve some of these issues stalled for lack of a clear, concise statement of what these issues are. It would be most helpful to hold off discussing these issues until we clarify what they are. If you would to join us in this (above) perhaps you would also provide a tentative summary statement. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anyone interested in expanding this article?

In its current state this article is essentially a stub, with only one small (but perhaps about to grow) section on psychological significance, and a quite inane "In popular culture" section. Even its notability has been questioned. However, in the recent discussions there has been some showing that the topic may have political as well as psychological significance. So I ask the forty some watchers present: is anyone is interested in researching this, with a view to a possible modest expansion and re-write? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Certainly any visual representing our planet in a more equitable manner should be included in Wiki. It seems obvious that most mapping has an agenda, whether deliberate or unintentional. By broadening our available sources of maps we broaden our horizons. 2601:602:8001:8300:EDB6:464B:F9BC:D3FC (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC) http://JohnDickinson.info

Sorry, no, there is no "should" here based on equity. Nor is it "obvious" that "most mapping has an agenda" beyond the overt purposes of mapping. If you have sources suggesting otherwise please offer them for consideration. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been reading about the Peters Projection and using that map for years to help groups begin to recognize that what we thought we knew isn't always the way things are. In my limited experience with them, south-on-top maps have a similar dislocation/relocation effect upon viewers. There are diverse views and fascinating experiences regarding these maps, and in a world where we are increasingly interacting with each other across the globe, this seems a ripe topic for Wiki information and discussion. I would love to have this as an additional resource when I convene educational experiences around maps. Just the discussion on this page, trying to elevate the whole topic to a Wiki page, has been fascinating and enlightening. Fascinatedbytheworld (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether this article might be such a resource depends on two factors: 1) whether the topic is sufficiently WP:NOTABLE (click on the link to read about that Wikipedia guideline) to warrant an article, and 2) whether there is a suffciency of editorial interest in doing the work. The former depends on a sufficiency of WP:reliable sources covering the topic, the latter depends on editors willing to study those sources. Which is the question I have thrown out to everyone watching this page, but note the paucity of response. (BTW, note the use of colons to indent successive comments.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal re citations

The typical ("default") Wikipedia method of citing material is to add the full citation of the source between <ref>...</ref> tags in the text. (Which are "automagically" displayed as notes at the end of the article.) However, this has some drawbacks, particularly in making the text harder to read in the edit window. As there seems to be more interest in adding material to this article I propose switching to a different method, where the full citations are collected in a separate section at the end, and short cites (like "Smith 2004") are used in the text to connect the material in the text to the appropriate sources. This will make editing less confusing, both in the article body, and the references list. Any objections? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal seems reasonable to me, no objections. Arlen 00:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. At the present time you seem to be the major contributor. And there being no objections I will start converting the citations, along with some clean-up. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Done! Everyone adding material to the article please note the following:

• The full-citation with all (or as many as possible) of the bibliographic details goes into a {{citation}} template in the "Sources" section. See existing instances for guidance. Note that the |pages= parameter should have the page range for journal articles.
• In the text, following the added material, create the short cite using a {{harvnb}} template with the last name of each author, followed by the year of the source.
• It is preferred that the specific location - generally a page number - within the source where the material is found be added to the short cite. This is done using the |p= or |pp= parameters. E.g.: {{Harv|Smith|2012|p=42}}.

Ask if you have questions or problems with anyone this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks great! Nice work J. Johnson (JJ) Arlen 16:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guthdog (talk • contribs)

Noting exceptions

A recent edit made by User: Cls14 added the following: "A notable exception to this thesis is the North-South divide in England, where the north of the country is generally seen as less affluent and with less job opportunities and the south having more of both.[citation needed]." I think it's worth discussing: (1) whether this case truly represents an exception to the thesis that there is a north-south bias, and (2) whether there may be too many cases like this (of a southern region of the world being richer than a northern region) to start noting them individually. My understanding is that the thesis suggests there is a bias, such that all else being equal, people will inappropriately overvalue northern regions. There are many other very powerful factors that also influence real estate value (access to water, weather patterns, elevation, soil fertility, etc.), but the legitimacy of these additional factors doesn't really invalidate the north-south bias thesis, nor do the 100s of cases where southern regions are richer than northern reasons (e.g., Florida, England, Iceland). Perhaps there's a more concise way to say that north is not always richer than south, and give a few notable examples? Arlen 05:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

(1) It's not an exception; it's a refutation. The literature is so sparse and so careless of obvious things like cultural bias, that the literature has nothing useful to say about the topic. The faint north/south bias, such as it exists, is apparently an American thing, not a Canadian thing, not an English thing, and not a human thing. As editors, this is not our debate. The literature ought to answer the question if this article were notable, but the literature doesn't. (2) They shouldn't be noted individually. The fact that the phenomenon is culturally rooted should be cited from the (nonexistent) literature, which would also give examples, rather than random editors tossing in whatever uncited tidbits they know about. Strebe (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Strebe. My understanding is that we established 2-3 months ago that you haven't actually made an attempt to read the social science literature on this topic, and further that after we both agreed to seek out a neutral 3rd party to arbitrate (J. Johnson) it was determined that you would stop making edits to this page. Your hand-waving about a lack of cross-cultural literature is not helpful, and not consistent with the literature that is already cited on this page (which includes authors from the U.S., South America, and Australia). Arlen 22:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Arlen, I am sorry to learn about your control issues. No, we established nothing about what I have read and haven't read; you have no information about that and you ought to feel peculiar for imagining you do and then publicly stating so. I did not agree not edit the article. If you have complaints about my recent, unexceptionable edit, you are welcome to change it or challenge it or do whatever else is permitted. Meanwhile my opinion remains as stated: Your very questions demonstrate that the article already says more about this barely notable topic than is warranted. Strebe (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Strebe your snide comment insinuating that another editor has "control issues" is not helpful, and even uncivil. That you have any kind of issues with this article is really immaterial, in that you abandoned last December's discussion (above) where we tried to sort out what those issues might be. (See my comments of 22:06, 19 Jan., prior to my closing that discussion.) I remind you that you previously stated (23:21, 30 Dec.) that you "don't have time" to explain your comments, and: "Do what you want with the article; I can’t care that much." On that basis the modus vivendi reached last January was that you would not be editing here. If you should wish to return to editing this article then you really should start with some sincere efforts to mend fences with your colleagues. Not with a snide comment. That you might have a useful contribution to make, or even if your POV is entirely correct, is really secondary at this point: you have demonstrated an inability to resolve differences. Until you demonstrate otherwise I strongly suggest that you avoid editing this article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

J. Johnson (JJ), the only reason I left the discussion is because of your behavior, and this is yet another example. Why exactly are you taking sides in this? How is it that you do not find Arlen’s comment offensive, but you find mine offensive? Do you think Arlen’s comment has anything to do with resolving differences, when his entire purpose was to shut down what I had to say, about the article, in response to “his” solicitation for opinions? What problem do you have with my recent edit in the article, that you are again imperiously issuing “strong suggestions” that I avoid editing the article? Do you think my recent edit is bad and does Arlen think it is bad, or are you two simply ganging up on me because I dared to make •any• edit after your overbearing injunctions? Are you now going to “strongly suggest” that I don’t even offer relevant opinions on the Talk page? I am •fine• resolving differences. I am •not fine• being shut down like this, or having my time wasted by digressions into whether questioning the article’s notability means the article’s notability has been questioned, as you did the last time we had a go-around. You should start examining your own practices if you expect cooperation. Strebe (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not "ganging up" on you, I am trying to address what seems to be the core problem here. You will recall that when Robert McClenon came in to provde a third opinion, he asked (06:12, 18 Dec.) if "one or both of the editors [could] state a concise question...", and subsequently bailed out because of the "back-and-forth" (20:04, 19 Dec.). I then asked if you and Arlen would like assistance in formulating a clear statement of the question or issue here. I was unable to due this, mainly because of your often unhelpful responses, but also because of your unwillingness to take the time to resolve various issues that get raised.

You will kindly note that the issue here and now is not about your recent edit (regarding which I have no position), but your current disruptive comments, starting with (above): "Arlen, I am sorry to learn about your control issues." As to the background issue, of this topic's notability, it is your lack of cooperation in trying to formulate a clear statement of the question or issue that has been the main cause of "time wasted by digressions". If you would like to invite someone else to assist in resolving any of this, or even to attempt (as Robert suggested) a moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, please do so. If not, well, I expect you are headed for ANI.

I am pinging @Robert McClenon: in case he wants to comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me ask again, since you evaded my question, J. Johnson (JJ). How is it that you do not find Arlen’s comments offensive, but you find my response to his comments offensive? Do you think Arlen’s comments are an attempt to resolve differences, as you so regally admonished me to do after his offensive comments? You are nothing like impartial here. Again, examine your own behavior a little more critically before lording over others with ANI threats and incessant "strong suggestions". I don't care about your petty threats. Strebe (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

So, like, you want to start an extended digression into whether Arlen's comments are offensive (what, the bit about hand-waving?), but your "control issues" comment is not? Sorry, but the only point in explaining (answering) anything to you would be if there was some chance of behavior modification, which, given your display of adamantine resistance, I now deem quite unlikely. I certainly am not under any obligation to satisfy you on any of these points. I made my prior suggestion to you "strong" in order to impress on you that it was not made lightly or flippantly, and out of genuine concern for you. But I think I am done trying to reach out to you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No, J. Johnson (JJ), unlike anyone else involved here, I’m perfectly happy to admit my comment was offensive. It was a reaction to the insults and attempt to shut me down for a good-faith opinion I tendered in response to a request for opinions. If you can honestly tell yourself that Arlen’s response was a sincere attempt to reconcile differences, then have at it, man. Knock yourself out. And sleep well. Strebe (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yet again

Since I was pinged, I will comment. However, having briefly (not at length) read four months of discourse, I don't see what I am being asked to comment on. Unfortunately, my reading is that User:Strebe has been profoundly unhelpful in efforts by others to ask him or her to clarify what the issues are. Their replies often become ad hominem, such as comments on "control issues" and "ganging up". My first thought is that I don't care whether there are 51 degrees above me or 51 degrees below me and 129 degrees above. That is, my first thought is that it is only a convention, but I can see that psychological issues are cited, and I would like to know what they are. More generally, I said four months ago that I wanted to see a concise question. I still have not seen a concise question because of the back-and-forth. I don't care much who presents the concise question, but it does appear that Strebe is doing as much as they can, probably unintentionally but very really, to make a concise question impossible. If someone can present a concise question, I will try to answer it. It still appears to me, from a scientific perspective, to be nothing more than a convention. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I had suggested moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I no longer suggest that, since that is meant to resolve questions within seven to fourteen days, and after four months, we have gotten nowhere. At this point the possibilities are a request for formal mediation in the hope that an experienced mediator can get the parties at least to talk civilly to each other and maybe discuss something, or to just stop discussing, because discussion isn't helpful, or WP:ANI. ANI is only helpful to most of the editors in a case such as this if it results in one of them being topic-banned. User:Strebe: Do you want to be civil and concise and comment on content, not contributors? Or are you willing to let the discussion drop? The alternative might be a topic-ban, and those only help if an editor is a net negative. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I'm sorry you got dragged back into this mess. Let me make something clear: I am not attempting to make edits here or redesign the article. All that happened was, Arlen recently solicited opinions, here, on the Talk page. I gave mine. His response was to insult me and attempt to shut down any contributions I might ever have the audacity to make. I took him to task for it. The end. There never was a concise question to answer, which is why you never saw one. I gave my opinions on the article's many problems here, long ago: #Another_third_opinion. Strebe (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that I have figured out who Arlen is, which was enough of a mystery, it is still a mystery to me what the issue is between these two editors. I do see the comments of Arlen is slightly patronizing, but nothing warranting the deeply insulting tone from User:Strebe. In any case, I am not interested any further unless there is an issue about the article (rather than this talk page). If there is an issue about the article, I would yet again suggest that both editors formulate concise civil questions. If not, perhaps the article can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

For my part, I'd just like to say that I think the calls from Robert McClenon and J. Johnson (JJ) to focus on one concise question at a time represent our best chance of moving forward, and I will do my best to engage civilly and substantively moving forward.

To begin, the question that generated this recent flare up was, I think, pretty concise. It was should the page include examples of "exceptions" to the north south bias thesis? A helpful analogy might be to consider the thesis that bias towards women is a real and measurably psychological phenomenon that undermines women's economic mobility. One might point out that there are many examples of women who have achieved extremely high levels of professional success (e.g., Marissa Mayer is the current CEO of Yahoo, Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton, etc.), but do those examples invalidated the thesis? A related, even more concise question is, do "exceptions" invalidate or refute any thesis concerning bias? I got frustrated earlier because I felt Strebe's reply moved us from that concise question to a much broader set of questions about the entire literature (14 sources are cited on this page, and there are more sources that are not cited). I understand that Strebe believes the article has "many problems." If he can articulate one at a time, I'm willing to engage in a civil discussion of one concise question at a time. Arlen 01:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guthdog (talk • contribs)

Problem #1. The cited literature does not establish any pan-cultural north-bias. The very article Arlen appears to have co-authored states this in its “Future Research Considerations”. The question of “exceptions” means nothing outside the purview of the studies drawn upon. Both studies are specifically American. Therefore any talk of “exceptions” must mean exceptions within American sensibilities. Yet the text of the Wikipedia article makes no mention whatsoever of the restrictive nature of the studies being drawn upon, and so the editor who added the bit about England had no reason to suppose his exception wasn’t actually an exception. To wit, the 2011 study was:

• Mostly US north-eastern in cohort;
• Mostly young women;
• Not large sample sets;
• Only addresses highly local, highly abstracted maps with no evidenced applicability or generalizability to world maps and contestable applicability to local real maps;
• Does not control for subjects’ likely supposition that the centers of the abstract regions are business centers where people’s homes aren’t likely to be, which means subjects likely largely avoided the large space in middle of the map, which renders questionable the studies’ use of statistical devices such as mean and standard deviation that presume normal distributions;
• Does not control for at least one important psychological factor that confounds innumerable studies like this one due to the unpredictable effects on their subjects’ behavior:
  • The absurdity a subject feels when forced to choose in a context devoid of information to inform a choice: (Where on this blank map do you think this rich man lives? Where on this blank map would you choose to live? And so on.)
    • Does the subject lash out and choose in a contrarian way?
    • Does the subject reliably, docilely give in to the supposed biases and reflect them faithfully in responses?
    • Or a mishmash with ratios varying by subject?

These sorts of factors are exactly why science is a consensus of experts, not a sampling of studies, and therefore why Wikipedia has policies like WP:SECONDARY. Wikipedia also has policies like WP:COI so that primary authors do not fall prey to their own biases and inject WP:UNDUE weight for their theses into articles. If the literature were robust enough to make an article about, we would have secondary sources that do things like call out the fact that the north-bias touted in this Wikipedia article occurs in specific locales, that explain the magnitude and implications of the bias, and that note variation in the bias across nations and cultures. But that secondary literature doesn’t exist, and we are specifically not empowered as editors to haggle over whether such-and-such exception invalidates some thesis. That would be WP:OR. That haggling must happen in the literature. The first paragraph of South-up map orientation#Psychological significance is simply wrong without stating the limitations on its assertions, and even with those limitations, it would not be considered well sourced, since it is merely a sampling of two studies rather than the consensus of experts, as intended by WP:SECONDARY.

In short, if much of the psychology section is to remain, it needs to be far more restrictive in its claims, so that the England “exception” would have no need to exist. Either that, or the England case would be cited. That’s the Wikipedia way to salvage this mess. Strebe (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Strebe I think it's a stretch to consider your question/comment concise or entirely civil, but I'll do my best to engage with your new question in a timely and civil manner (Problem #1. The cited literature does not establish any pan-cultural north-bias). To begin, I don't think it was appropriate to focus your attention on one source, when multiple primary and secondary sources already cited on this page contribute to establishing generalizability. Since you wrote a lot above, it may take me a little time to write a careful response. Thanks for your patience. Arlen (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A response to Strebe's Problem #1: The cited literature does not establish any pan-cultural north-bias

First, it would be helpful for this discussion if you (Strebe) can point to the specific problematic language on the current version of this page that you think asserts "a pan-cultural north-bias" (I don't think the words "pan-cultural" appear). I agree that "pan-cultural" would be overstated as it implies all cultures, but I'm willing to discuss whether the cited literature includes cross-cultural evidence of a north-bias or a north-up bias (a thesis that people irrationally view northern regions as more favorable when they're placed at the top of maps), which I think it does. This includes sources published by different authors in the U.S. (Meier et al. 2011; Nelson & Simmonds 2009; Wood et al., 2006; Wood, 2010), Latin America (Levine, 1982; Torres-Garcίa, 1935, 1943), and Australia (McArthur, 1979), as well as a British author writing about north-bias and Latin American south-up maps (De Armendi, 2009). A second important point is that the literature concerning cross-cultural generalizability and south-up map orientation extends beyond "north-bias," per se, to "up-bias" more generally (the idea that psychologically the top of a map is a privileged position vs. the bottom half of a map). The cross-cultural evidence for this spatial "up-bias" is even larger in terms of # of sources and speaks directly to why anyone would care what goes on the top vs. bottom of a map (Meier & Robinson, 2004; Montoro et al., 2015; Kacinik, 2014). A third related literature that is very central to the topic of south-up map orientation are the many, many sources that establish a strong (irrational) association between north-up and south-down in English speaking countries, to the extent that the words "uptown" and "downtown" are defined in every major English dictionary (e.g., http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uptown). Related idioms (like going "down south" and going "up north," or living "down under" in Australia) are recognized by psychologists as evidence of deep cognitive associations (Kacinik, 2014), in these cases directly tied to conventional north-up map orientation.

In the spirit of conciliation, is there some qualifier language that you (Strebe) think would improve transparency on this issue of generalizability? For example, an edit might point out that the nine experiments that have been run on north-up bias have each used samples made up of U.S. college students. Arlen (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Your response illustrates why I keep talking about WP:SECONDARY, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. The sources you mention are disjointed in thesis, applicability, and methods. Those who make merely rhetorical arguments, such as Wood, McArthur, Levine, and especially Kaiser, prove nothing, and their assertions are disputable on many grounds. The Fenna attribution seems to be completely fictitious. At least, I reviewed his book thoroughly when it was published and remember no such thing, and then I went back just now, wasting over an hour searching, but still turned up nothing. Citations like that are obliged to have a page number on them.

The questionable accretion of citations reads very much like a tendentious attempt to convince readers of something that has no agreement among experts. The existence of these various studies and opinions is not under dispute (although the notability of some might be), and so it’s possible to note them individually along with their limitations, but in the absence of secondary literature that clearly states the relationships between these ideas and human behavior, the article can’t be encyclopædic. In order to make it pass even minimal muster, each of the cited things needs to be clearly framed with its limitations.

Your proposed fix for the first paragraph is a considerable improvement. Personally, it still smells bad, since one has to suppose regional affiliations must play into responses like that. For example, if the subjects were from Atlanta, they may well choose a position northward of center if they imagined the map were about a city. But if it were more broadly regional or national, would they? Who knows. That study hasn’t been done. Likewise, it’s doubtful Canadians feel the same positive associations between north = good that their neighbors in more temperate regions might, despite an up = good bias. The English “exception” is what sparked this. Southern English have no fondness for what’s northward, that I have been able to detect, and so again, (north = up) might be true and (up = good) might be true, but the transitive (north = up = good) fails. A robust secondary literature would, of course, call assumptions like transitivity into question, but that literature doesn’t exist. That assumption as it manifests in this article is WP:SYNTH, and is really not allowed.

The bit about popular songs is ludicrously bad, evidencing no knowledge about history or etymology. Those songs came out of a particular socioeconomic era specific to the United States. The very terms “uptown/downtown” are Americanisms. The good/bad associations are retrospective, not a consequence of up = good/down = bad: Business districts tended to be built on level ground, whereas residential districts were pragmatically built on the hillier regions away from the business district. You see this pattern all over the country, and that is why those terms exist. In the era of suburbanization, people began to pine for things like backyards and bigger houses because commuting by car made such luxuries feasible. Downtowns decayed, and gradually the association between downtown and poverty, and uptown and wealth, formed. In particular, if you could stay in town in the residential areas, you had to be wealthier than both those who fled to the suburbs and those still trapped in the tenements. But now, that trend is reversing again. Downtowns are revitalizing and in most metropolises, a condominium downtown carries considerable cachet. It’s no surprise that “downtown” has largely reverted to mean merely the business district in most places. Just because someone manage to slip a speculation about songs into their study doesn’t make the speculation scientific, accurate, better than arm-chair musing, or quotable in an encyclopædia. Strebe (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Strebe, but your assertion that four sources should be summarily dismissed because they make rhetorical arguments that you disagree with is simply not a compelling argument ("Those who make merely rhetorical arguments, such as Wood, McArthur, Levine, and especially Kaiser, prove nothing, and their assertions are disputable on many grounds."). Many of the finest Wikipedia articles rely entirely on sources that are rhetorical as opposed to empirically oriented. For you to attack them as disputed and unacceptable without citing published literature that critiques these sources amounts to WP:OR. If you have sources to cite that are critical of these authors/sources ("Wood, McArthur, Levine, and especially Kaiser") reveal them.

To your comments that the article amounts to WP:SYNTH, I absolutely disagree. Few WP articles are drawn entirely from a single source (which is what you seem to be demanding). As far as I can tell, each of the 14 sources currently cited relate directly to the topic of south-up oriented maps, and there is not a single assertion that I could find that isn't supported by WP:SECONDARY sources. If there is a single specific assertion in this entry that you still believe either (a) is not related to south-up map orientation, or (b) is not supported by both primary and WP:SECONDARY sources, you are welcome to articulate one assertion at a time and then we can discuss them in a civil manner. To continue with your wide scoping condemnations of the entire article is not constructive at this stage.

To your provocative accusation that "The Fenna attribution seems to be completely fictitious," before making such an accusation you might consider the context/sentence citing this source ("That is, creating south-up oriented maps with the express rationale of reacting to the fact that north-up oriented world maps have dominated map publication during the modern age. [6] "). The Fenna (2006) source is being used to support the assertion that "north-up oriented world maps have dominated map publication during the modern age." To the extent that you believe any source that does not explicitly mention south-up map orientation is unacceptable, I ask why you requested a citation for the "North-south divide in England," which could be relevant, but would almost certainly not mention south-up map orientation directly.

Finally, to your very uncivil remark about the references to popular song lyrics as illustrations of north-up bias ("The bit about popular songs is ludicrously bad, evidencing no knowledge about history or etymology."). The lyrics from these songs are explicitly discussed in the context of south-up map orientation in several well regarded WP:SECONDARY sources, including a Wall Street Journal article discussing Billy Joel's song Uptown Girl Additional WP:SECONDARY sources that are not yet cited on this page include articles in the Chicago Tribune and the Harvard Business Review .

References

If you believe there are published sources that you can cite to discredit assertions made in the current version of this article, I invite you to share those sources to support your arguments. For example, if you can find an example of a city wherein the "downtown" region is placed north of the "uptown" region, please, bring it to our attention. I think, properly sourced, that would be a very interesting addition. If your very confident assertion that elevation is the entire basis for these labels is correct, about half the downtowns in the world should be north of uptowns, right? Arlen (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Let’s get something out of the way. I don’t care about your claims of “uncivility”, so you might as well give it up. You and I have very different notions of what that means. I find your behavior distinctly unsavory as well. If you want to discuss that, take it to some private venue. It’s pointless here.

The article states, More noteworthy than the technical matter of orientation, per se, is the history of explicitly using south-up map orientation as a political statement. That is, creating south-up oriented maps with the express rationale of reacting to the fact that north-up oriented world maps have dominated map publication during the modern age. This is attributed to Fenna. I stated Fenna says no such thing. I cannot make the faintest sense of your explanation for how this piece of text in the article has anything to do with Fenna. If it has something to do with Fenna, give me some page number to look at. Otherwise get rid of the attribution and even the paragraph unless it can be properly cited.

For example, if you can find an example of a city wherein the "downtown" region is placed north of the “uptown” region, please, bring it to our attention. Seriously? Uh… okay. Boston. Pittsburgh. Toledo. Minneapolis. I mean, there’s going to be no end to examples because this whole business about uptown = northtown = goodtown is a fantasy. Boston’s uptown is uptown because of its elevation and distance away from the harbor, where of course downtown was, and this is true of any old port city with elevations away from the port. Where’s downtown? Down along the water. Where is uptown? Up away from the harbor. It’s very simple. This is clearly demonstrated by the non-northward orientations of other cities’ “uptowns” even if they’re not southward: Columbus, Ohio; Norfolk; New Orleans where an explanation of “uptown” for that part of the world is even provided, and it has nothing to do with north and everything to do with local geography. But since yes, speculations are noted in notable publications, the fact of those speculations can be mentioned, but (a) the citations in the article are the wrong ones; they’re WP:PRIMARY where it’s better to use the ones from the newspapers; (b) the article states “English-speakers” when the alleged evidence is completely American as well as are the idioms “uptown”/“downtown”; and (c) the article shouldn’t be trying to claim such usage is “evidence”. It should be noted as the speculation that it is.

It’s also mystifying that you press for “in the world” when “uptown” is an Americanism, as I already pointed out. Certainly the term has come to have tony overtones, and so modern districts like to name themselves “uptown” to that end (Cleveland’s uptown, for example—which is east, not north, but also many younger American cities where the recently designated uptown actually is northward due to the association between north and up), and that may well have trickled into other parts of the English-speaking world in neologistic toponyms, but the question here is whether “uptown” originated from “northward”+“goodward”, not how its usage later evolved.

I’m sorry if this hits too close to home, but, well, that‘s why Wikipedia has policies like WP:COI. Someone further removed wouldn’t find contrary evidence upsetting, and they might be more inclined to investigate history and etymology rather than ignore that such things were even mentioned in order to continue perpetuating a tendentious speculation presented as encyclopædic. Regardless of how the editing goes, this page records a good many problems evidenced by the thesis and its presentation. That’s good enough for me. I’ll direct plenty of people to it and maybe somebody somewhere will be motivated enough to publish rigorous rebuttals. Strebe (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Strebe I am disappointed to hear that you are explicitly abandoning your efforts to conform to this community's Civility standard, a part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. I hope that with time you will reconsider the wisdom of this and the harm it causes. In the meantime, I do support you moving on and I welcome civil participation from any editors with expertise who you can direct to this article. Peace be with you, Arlen (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I am disappointed to hear that you are explicitly abandoning your efforts to conform to this community's Civility standard. This is yet another example of your own uncivil behavior, Arlen. I neither said nor implied any such thing. What I did say is that we disagree on what constitutes civility. This repeated behavior of misrepresentation marks you as profoundly uncivil. The only uncivil thing I wrote was about your control issues, and that was a reaction to blatant, unprovoked ridiculing that you yourself committed, never acknowledged, and certainly never apologized for. Everything else you have called uncivil was critique. No, it wasn’t gentle critique, but in the face of your repeated misrepresentations, I feel no particular need to or interest in softening what I have to say. Your slanders are documented on this page for posterity.

Meanwhile I think I have figured out what you intend by your explanation of the Fenna reference. I think you’re stating that Fenna’s work is an example replete with north-up maps, which supports the assertion that north-up maps have dominated map publication in the modern age. If that’s what it’s about, then all you’ve done is document all of my complaints about this article with this one situation. It’s bad logic to trot out a single example as supporting evidence of ubiquity, and so it’s no surprise that you are not allowed to by WP:OR, and your rationale of …to support the assertion… is blatantly WP:SYNTH, and also not allowed. Meanwhile there’s no end to usable citations that state north-up is pervasive. Strebe (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you believe different definitions of Civility exist and that you think this breakdown is my fault and not yours. I don't expect you to consider my input at this point, but please consider this community's policy for dealing with these disagreements, Dispute resolution using outside Third opinion, and how that has gone. Arlen (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.