Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-06-06/Jiangxi

Where is the dispute?
The first map on the head page.

Who is involved?

 * User:Symane
 * User:Kwamikagami
 * User:LLTimes

What is the dispute?
I suggested using a globa perspective map of Jiangxi on the head page in order to facilitate people to locate Jiangxi at the first sight. However, two users, one of whom still prefers this map in an aesthetic view, expressed their opposition with the only argument that there is a long-established consensus that the Chinese province format is an established format used for almost all "Chinese provincial divisions" articles. Meanwhile, the Response to my Third Opinion Request proclaimed that "there is no compulsorily reason to use the same type of map in all Chinese provinces articles", and I also sincerely think that articles work independently on Wikipedia, and there shouldn't and won't be rule to impose any obligatory format shaping them into the same monotonous pattern.

What would you like to change about this?
A more explicit map would be much better to be placed on the head page because it enables people to seize the first information of the region, thus I suggest changing back to the global view map.

How do you think we can help?
After days long talk, I find it impossible to make some users understand there is no such a "consensus" they keep on pretending, backing by the response of the Third Opinion. They ignore it and seem to have finesses as they start to accuse me of vandalizing or edit warring. Therefore, I make a request here in hoping that you may clarify to them the existence of a "consensus" that they expect.

Mediator notes
A few things:
 * 1) Just as a disclaimer, this process is not any more official than the third opinion process. I am not going to create rules you have to abide by.
 * 2) This is the second mediation process sought for this article in a rather short timespan. I am going to assume this, like the other, applies only to the map. If there is a wider issue that you would like discussed as well, please add it to the discussion below. What exactly was unsatisfactory about the first? From what I see, the question asked there was rather vague- and thus got a similarly vague answer.
 * 3) This process will be easier if we stick to the issue- the map. Hence, I'd like it if there is no more mention, at least on this page, of "false consensus", because it is not helping. Please be objective and talk about the article, not the editors.

Let's try something.

Global map
Pros
 * Shows Jiangxi's location in the world

Cons
 * May be misleading about status as a country, not a province.
 * Not uniform with other maps
 * It does not inform readers of disputed areas
 * Vision is too small compare to the current map
 * Unlike the current map, people wouldn't able to compare different provinces directly on a global map.

That's the first impressions I get from reading the discussions. If there are any points I've overlooked, feel free to add them. {&#123; Sonia &#124;ping&#124;enlist}&#125; 10:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Two things:
 * 1) Is this mediation case only about the map, or about all the recent changes to Jiangxi? It makes a huge difference what it's about.
 * 2) All discussion on the talk page (that I can read- I'm a zh-2) has been noted; but I have notified the other involved parties and will wait for their input, if they wish. {&#123; Sonia &#124;ping&#124;enlist}&#125; 11:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually prefer the global perspective of Symane's map. However, originally there was the problem of the map being incorrect, with Arunachal Pradesh included in China. (S. says that is now taken care of; I have not verified.) My other concern is that some effort went into creating a set of identical maps for all Chinese province articles. These have been stable for some time, indicating at least passive consensus on the part of a very large number of readers and editors. The 3rd opinion stated merely that we don't have to follow this consensus, which is of course true; however, the only reason to break consensus in this case is that one editor doesn't like it. To me, that is not sufficient reason, without convincing one other editor or even discussing it at a central forum like WP:China. (I brought it up there, but last I checked there had been no response.) Add to that the fact that the map was factually incorrect, and I reverted S. a couple times. — kwami (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please update your argument that I've proposed a new map long ago with Arunachal Pradesh excluded from China. And then you keep talking of "consensus" here, please tell me where you found your so cherished "consensus". I don't think either Jiangxi article has any necessity to change the map simultaneously with other articles since each article works independently on Wikipedia. And you also acknowledge the advantages of the new map and you proclaim several times that you favour it. Maps with orthographic projection become more and more popular on Wiki and I think there must be some good reasons. Moreover, the only argument that you object this map is that you pretend there's a long-established consensus that the Chinese province format is an established format used for almost all "Chinese provincial divisions" articles which you still fail to prove its existence.
 * So I ask the mediation to clarify to any of us that there's no compulsory map format imposed on Wikipedia articles. Thanks.-- Symane  TALK  16:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * AS with most countries administrative subdivisions, standard maps are applied. What Symane is requesting here is a global map for the Chinese province Jiangxi. My opinion, 1) the map doesn't go into detail, ie including disputed areas. 2) not to mention if the map was used, it would confuse the readers at first glance if this was a country or a province, since other provinces strictly use standard maps. 3) The current map define the border of the province more and can be use to compare with other provinces directly which global vision can't. For a bonus it show rivers, lake and other details.--LLTimes (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jiangxi is not only a political concept, the head map is not designed to decide it's a country or a province. Moreover, Chinese boundaries are much wider than other countries' on the map and it clearly indicates that Jiangxi is within China. I'm also sure you'll fail again to prove there's a long-established consensus that maps with orthographic projection are an established format used for almost all country articles.  And in my opinion, the function of head map is to give the first information of the region, while the content of the article depicts details.
 * Then I repeat here for the last time, Arunachal Pradesh was excluded from China on the map long time ago. Please take no more this as an excuse. -- Symane  TALK  17:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Symane, the consensus is as self evident as any of the unproven arguments you are making. If you can't see it when it's pointed out to you, I don't know what else to say. — kwami (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What you insist is not a “consensus” at all, but only a common usage on Wikipedia which has no authority to compulsorily imposed on any article. As for me, I would never use the fact that this global map is widely used on other Wikipedias as an argument to force English Wiki to accept it. Wikipedia doesn't demand its articles be uniformed under the same format.
 * And whether readers would be misled or not because of a global map is out of personal knowledge or perspective. I don't think it is a good excuse for your opposition, because many countries don't use global maps and many global maps are not created for countries.-- Symane  TALK  15:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Symane, you are convinced that this map should be used. Are there any other reasons you can add to the "pros" section above to show why the global map is better? Unless we can see objectively how the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, this is going to go nowhere. so  nia ♫♪ 10:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsolicited Third Opinion - I have reviewed all the other province articles, and they all use the same map type to locate the province within the borders of China. Each map shows the borders of all of the provinces, indicating the province in question by showing it in red. Please don't forget that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and that individual articles like those about the provinces of China need to be evaluated as a group as well as individually. I feel that there is a great deal of value in the amount of information that is conveyed by the set of maps depicting the locations of each of the Chinese provinces. If there were a set of maps with the global perspective that Symane advocates, but also with the additional information that the existing map set provides, there would be an argument to be made for switching, but without the additional maps and province border indications, switching just one of a set of maps removes more worthwhile information than the global perspective contributes. This is not an issue of forcing a particular format, but one of consensus among not just the editors of this particular article, but the editors of all of the articles about each of the provinces within China. Come up with an entire set of maps, one for each of the provinces, with province borders for all provinces on every map, and my vote, for one, will be different.Bobzchemist (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this mediation still live? If so, where is it taking place? Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume this debate is dead. --LLTimes (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As such, I have marked this mediation as closed. Please contact me if you need it reopened. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)