UN endorses new map projection to show Africa's true size
Left 0%
Center 50%
Right 50%
0 left · 1 center · 1 right
What happened
On Friday, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Togo-sponsored resolution, backed by the African Union, encouraging governments and institutions to use the Equal Earth map projection rather than the traditional Mercator projection. The measure passed 164 to 1, with the United States casting the only opposing vote and Serbia, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Moldova, and Ukraine abstaining. The 16th-century Mercator projection, designed for maritime navigation, depicts Greenland and Africa as similar in size; the 2018 Equal Earth projection shows landmasses in true relative proportions, with Africa 14 times larger than Greenland. The resolution does not ban the Mercator projection or impose a replacement.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 3 articles
2 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared 19 hours later. Yaryna Ferencevych denied part of it on the record.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 3
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: United Nations General Assembly, Robert Dussey, Jean-Noël Barrot and BBC
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 3
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: UN resolution
- Credits another outlet 0 of 3
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 3
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- On-record denial 1
- A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Yaryna Ferencevych (Breitbart, Sep 6, 13:40 UTC)
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 5, 12:57 UTC by The Hill, with no named source. First named source 19 hours later, from CBS News. First document 19 hours later, from CBS News (UN resolution).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage presents the United States as the only holdout against a factual size correction and never reports that the resolution only encourages a new projection. The Hill frames the vote as "correcting Africa's size" and recites the margin, without saying governments are free to keep existing maps. The New York Post states the text does not ban the Mercator projection or impose a replacement. A reader of the first account hears a binding global fix the United States uniquely blocked. A reader of the second hears a suggestion.
The two sides do not use the same verb. Left-leaning coverage says "correcting Africa's size." Right-leaning coverage at Breitbart calls it a move to "enhance Africa's size."
Did the resolution's own text mention reparations or cognitive justice, or did that phrasing come only from the U.S. explanation of its no vote?
Bottom line
A 164-to-one UN map vote reads like a global order if you saw The Hill, which never said governments can keep Mercator.
The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
- The resolution does not ban the Mercator projection or impose a replacement and only encourages use of Equal Earth
- U.S. representative Yaryna Ferencevych said the General Assembly was debating 16th-century map projects and their role in promoting reparations and cognitive justice
- On the Equal Earth projection Africa is 14 times larger than Greenland
- The six countries that abstained were Serbia, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Moldova and Ukraine
- Syracuse geographer Mark Monmonier said Mercator has no point outside a narrow navigation use
The Left View
The Hill framed the United States as the only country that did not support a UN resolution "correcting Africa's size on world maps," highlighting the 164-to-one passage of the "Correct the Map" initiative that adjusts the appearance of Africa and other regions.
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage treated the vote as ideological. The New York Post noted the non-binding encouragement of Equal Earth after an African-led campaign. Breitbart said the U.N. voted to promote projections that "enhance Africa's size" to counter perceptions the continent is peripheral, and that the United States dismissed the initiative as part of a "radical ideological project." It quoted U.S. representative Yaryna Ferencevych: "Instead of focusing on genuine problems of international peace, prosperity, or good relations, this body is debating map projects from the 16th Century, and their role in promoting reparations and 'cognitive justice.'" Breitbart added that the U.S., France, and Russia would appear smaller and described the change as soothing "hurt feelings."
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that presenting the resolution as a "correction" of Africa's size is justified by Mercator's documented distortion—Africa shown as comparable to Greenland despite being 14 times larger—and by the 164-1 vote, plus a geographer's assessment that outside navigation "there is no point in using it." The right's strongest argument is the U.S. delegate's charge that the General Assembly was mocking its purpose by debating 16th-century maps and "cognitive justice" instead of peace and prosperity, together with the purely hortatory text and the recasting of relative map size as redress. The central unresolved tension is whether endorsing a world-map projection is chiefly a technical matter of representing area faithfully or a political act of historical narrative.
4 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.