Talk:Piri Reis map

Spilhaus projection

Strangely resemble the Spilhaus Projection from XX century 83.11.112.161 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The whole first section is missing citations

"A disproven 20th-century hypothesis identified the southern landmass with an ice-free Antarctic coast."

Really? When? By whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.249.92 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

per WP:LEADCITE: the lead section of an article is a summary of the (cited) article body. Citations can be found with the corresponding prose being summarized in the article itself. Remsense诉 08:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Does it "depict[] Cuba as part of the Asian mainland"?

This seems a very odd turn of phrase to me, but my attempts to 'improve' it have been reverted more than once now. I can't access the original source, but even the description in the body seems very different from this. Does it really 'depict' Asia -- either as it is, or as it was thought to be at the time -- or does it more straightforwardly rather mislabel the American mainland? Or does the Columbus map being now lost make this hard to say with any clarity? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Carta marina navigatoria Portvgallen navigationes, atqve tocius cogniti orbis terre marisqve formam natvram sitvs et terminos nostris temporibvs recognitos et ab antiqvorum traditione differentes, LOC 2016586433-1.tif

From Martin Waldseemüller's Carta Marina Navigatoria (1516): "TERRA DE CUBA • ASIE PARTIS [Land of Cuba • Part of Asia]"

"Template:Tq" assumes that Piri Reis or his sources had modern information about the North American mainland. WP:RS say that this map (and several contemporary maps like Waldseemüller's Carta Marina or the 1506 map by Nicolay de Caveri) reflect a misconception that Cuba and possibly several discoveries across the Atlantic Ocean were known parts of Asia or directly connected to known parts of Asia. They could only map what they knew, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't assume that at all -- just the reverse, as clearly they did not, and that's precisely why they labelled it incorrectly. Yes, I agree that they 'reflect the misconception' -- but that's a different (and IMO better) characterisation than that it 'depicts Asia'. Do you have a direct quote from the cited source -- or from any other such -- that suggests it's essentially a c'n'p from Asia as it was then or previously mapped? Or generally clarifies what the source does say. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Gaspar (2015) p. 2: "Template:Tq" [Article text cited to it: "The peculiar configuration of the Caribbean is usually attributed to the usage of an early map of Columbus, now lost."]

McIntosh (2000a) p. 114: "Template:Tq" [Article text cited to it: "The western coast on the map combines features of Central America and Cuba, reflecting Columbus's claim that Cuba was part of an Asian mainland."] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, much obliged. Can we accordingly say something closer to this second quote regarding what's being 'depicted'? i.e. the combination, rather than simply Asia. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Something like: "Scholars attribute the peculiar arrangement of the Caribbean to a now-lost map from Columbus that depicted Cuba as part of the Asian mainland and Hispaniola according to Marco Polo's description of Japan. This reflects Columbus's erroneous claim that he had found a route to Asia." → "Template:Tq" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've edited in something indeed 'like' that, please correct if I've strayed too far or otherwise erred. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I did two edits just now. I've added some explanation of elements of Hispaniola (on Piri Reis' map) that are clearly from Columbus and not a map of Japan to the body, and then took out "equated" for Hispaniola/Japan as "merge" is the more appropriate verb. I hope this also goes some way towards addressing your concern that the lead can be read to mean that either Piri Reis or Columbus did "essentially a c'n'p from Asia". Modern WP:RS covering the map pretty much all describe it as a synthesis or combination rather than just copying. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Right. That all makes sense to me, great stuff. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "By whom"

I don't think this is necessary, but something like below could be added to the lead:

References

I think that is too much detail for the lead, but would accept consensus in either direction. To attribute "disproven" to any one person would violate WP:NPOV, in the same way that adding "according to Neil deGrasse Tyson" to the lead of Moon landing conspiracy theories would be problematic. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rjjiii just wanted to add that I was replacing the previous editor's addition of Template:Tpq with the template "", I don't have any concerns personally with the detail myself. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 21:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)