# Talk:Piri Reis

His name easily proves he's a Muslim.
"Hadji" refers to a person who has performed the Hajj pilgrimage.
"Ahmed," is one of the names of the holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him).
"Muhiddin" is a common Muslim name (with particular emphasis on the "iddin" or "uddin" which is used by Muslims exclusively. Many famous Muslims have "Iddin" or "Uddin" in their name, such as Jalaluddin Rumi (the poet) and Salahuddin Ayyubi (the name who defeated the Crusaders) and many, many more.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.143.247 (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 
The absence of referring to him as a Muslim shows a deep anti-Muslim bias in this article. It was probably written by some angry ultra-nationalist Greek, Jew or Islamophobic bigot. Do NOT fabricate history and do not spread lies. Piri Reis was definately 100% a Muslim. Please mention this. I have added this, so do not remove this.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.143.247 (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 

If it's so easily proven, please supply some reliable sources to confirm this.  Removed until such time, thanks.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch on the "other hand" thing, Andre. --Ed Poor

On Hapgood's page it describes him as an academian, does anyone have any issue with me changing it that that here?Halbared (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"academian" doesn't have much meaning, but is sometimes used to disguise pseudo-scholarship. not sure it's a good idea. kwami (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

According to a TV program I saw:

the map displays the Andes before their discovery.
The island of Marajo in the mouth of Amazon river doesn't appear. An old map?
Some text says that Columbus discovered the land in the year x Anno Hegira. That would be 148x.
-- Error 00:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Corrected statement that this was the first map to show America to first Turkish map to show America. Many maps, both manuscript and printed, were made in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Poland, etc., between 1492 and 1513 that depicted America.

Whoever keeps adding the reference to Hapgoods as a Pseudo-scholar should know I will remove it every time I check this page, (which is everyday) legitamate criticism is one thing, but don't resort to name calling and character assasination because you don't agree with his theories.  Besides, your refutation of his work was poor, really a pseudo-academic performance if you ask me, probably written by a pseudo-intellectual.  Sincerely, Mad Monkey  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.112.85 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 

Have you any Grey Poupon, or perhaps Aspergers?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.122 (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Someone added an image of the map with the claim that it shows perfectly the coast of Antarctica. This is nonsense as it is clearly an extension of the coast of South America (if it isn't, why is the bottom half of South America missing?). I have removed that claim. I suggest that person read some of the links (especially the debunking one I added some time back). --Infradig (andrew) 02:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The map is not centered  on Cairo as claimed. A quote from Soucek :  Soucek (1992:269) has reconstructed where the center of the map would have been: “By superimposing the existing fragment of the 1502 Cantino planisphere, it is possible to make a provisional reconstruction of the area covered by the remaining portion of Piri Re’is whole map. p. 270 “The size and extent of the whole chart shown there (14.6) have been tentatively extrapolated from the five compass circles on the fragment. The center of the circle on which these wind roses lie can be plotted roughly in the Sahara Desert, at the approximate latitude of the Tropic of Cancer.”  

S. Soucek. 1992. “Islamic Charting in the Mediterranean,” In J.B. Harley and D. Woodward, eds. Cartography in the Traditional Islamic and South Asian Societies. Vol. 2, book 1, 263-272. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Itzcoatl 07:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In case you aren't aware, there is a competing entry of sorts overlapping with this one at Piri Reis Map. Ideally, there should be discrete entries for Piri Reis the person and the Piri Reis map. My suggestion is that either 1) this page only include discussion of Piri Reis himself and not the map, or 2) there be only one page, entitled Piri Reis Map, that discusses both the person and the map. Comments? --Varenius 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Piri Reis map article is about a single map.  This article describes some of his other work.  -- SEWilco (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you telling that the map isn't the best of his time and only be made so good by satelite photo's. Isnt it to hard that A TURK better was in another rhing again than your kind. I now it's hard to accept but he found america before you and bring it on map. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.224.33 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 

Read more of the linked articles.  Reis' maps were based upon other maps, including ones from Spain and Portugal involving someone named Columbo/Columbus.  -- SEWilco (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get in the middle of an ethnocentric fight here, I know both the Europeans and the Turks have much to be proud of in their histories.  In the 1500's I believe Islam was a really progressive religion.  But I digress, It seems that the Piri Reis map was composed from earlier source maps, probably origionally taken from the Library of Alexandria, and was a remant of an earlier seafaring civilization that was almost completly wiped out during the great flood (of which there is a record of in every civilization.)  The great pyramids and the monuments in Central and South America were both probably both constructed by this advanced civilization, rather than the Incans, Mayas, and Aztecs, who even themselves contribute the building of the Pyramids to Quetzacotl and company, bearded "gods" who came over the seas from the West in ships.  
Is it really that much of a stretch for the continents of South America and Antarctica to have been connected?  Maybe the great flood occured because the earth's poles shifted, as they do from time to time (i.e. Alaska has tropical animals skeletons on it that died en masse, and New Zealand had no animal life besides for birds (meaning it probably was under one of the poles.))  
Maybe the poles shifted and this caused the great floods, nearly wiping out an advanced sea-faring civilization (Atlantis? or whatever you want to call it) of whom few survived.
Before you disregard this theory out of hand, think about the evidence to support it, and think of other thinkers who were derided and prosecuted in the past for giving forth ideas contrary to the status quo, who turned out to be right, like that fellow, Galileo was it who claimed the earth rotated around the sun.
Even if this is not in sync with one's religion, it is not a refutation of your religion, there is room for both belief and history.  We can both believe in religion (though I choose not to)and examine history with an open mind.
Thank you for the consideration
MadMonkey1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmonkey1 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 

At 90?  Just incredible...  never say no to the Sultan I guess, and he should have known better!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.66.196 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 

Dont talk without knowing anything. Because he left his navy during a war with Portugals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.207.210 (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Piri Reis was not a Christian. He is from the same family as the famous Kemal Reis, who was also his uncle.
Kemal Reis is from a family of central Anatolia, Karaman. 
Kemal Reis' family was Turkish Muslim. 
Piri Reis father name is Hadji Mehmed and that is not a Christian name either.
There is no source at all that he was a Christian and later converted to Islam.
The source that is given:  [Feudal society and its culture, Viktor Rutenburg, Progress Publishers, 1988, ISBN 9785010005283, p.176] is unreliable and the only source who claims that.
So I am deleting this because it is  propoganda that tries to claim every famous Turk as a Christian or Greek by origin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 
I already explained, stop being so racist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 

No, there is source, the one you keep removing and then crying "there is no source" and "stop being racist". Racist is the person who insist in racially clean nations, especially his. And both four authors of the source are serious scientists with many studies in their field and no one is greek as to accuse them of being "racists". Is not to you to decide what source is or isn't "reliable".--79.166.157.163 (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
it appears you aren't well versed in this subject, so you keep adding dubious sources. I let it stay as it is since you are a fellow christian. 80.186.117.131 (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not.--79.166.157.163 (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter to me if he was converted christian or greek, what matters me to me is the REALITY.
You ( 79.166.157.163 )  claim him  to be christian origin and possibly greek because of ONE (1) source:
But I can explain why that source is unreliable, please read this.

1- The most reliable source is this:
On his own map, (the famous of map of America in 1513), Piri Reis wrote this: This map was drawn by Piri Ibn Haji Mehmed, known as the nephew of Kemal Reis, in Gallipoli, in the month of muharrem of the year 919.
This is important: He writes his own name, his fathers name and that he was the nephew of Kemal Reis

2- In the Ottoman Empire, people who converted to Islam were called "son/daughter of Abdullah" That means in Arabic:
Servant of Allah, almost never the christian or ethnic origin name of the father was written and instead Abdullah was used.
Piri Reis writes his fathers name as Ibn Haji Mehmed that means: son of Haji Mehmed.( Not son of Abdullah, which he would probably used, if his father was a Christian)
Hajji is a muslim title given to people who have made the pilgrimage to Mecca 
and Mehmed is a version of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, this is clearly 100% a muslim name so his father was a muslim who had made the pilgrimage to Mecca. (And the chance that the son of a Muslim, was a Christian in that time, was 0%)

He also writes that he is the nephew of Kemal Reis. So his father was a brother of Kemal Reis. Who is Kemal Reis??
Kemal Reis was born in Gallipoli on the Aegean coast of Turkey around 1451. His full name was Ahmed Kemaleddin and his father was a Turk named Ali from the city of Karaman in central Anatolia. He became known in Europe, particularly in Italy and Spain, with names like Camali and Camalicchio.
So his father was a Muslim Turk and his uncle was a Muslim Turk.

You are the only one in the entire Internet claiming he was from Christian or Greek origin.
Your claim  is 100% not reliable, I explained it.
How can he be of Christian origin?
When he himself writes that his father is a muslim who made the pilgrimage to Mecca, his uncle is a famous muslim pirate and he himself is muslim.
After all this information. Dont you understand how ridiculous it is to claim: he was by origin christian, possibly Greek?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC) 

Please do not personalize the issue. It's not something between me and you. I am not "claiming" something, and unlike you, I have not a personal opinion about. I don't want to be dragged into an OR (original research) conflict here because this is not allowed in WP and because I really don't have the time. What I did is to participate in editing an article by referencing a sentence from a book that happens to be in front of me. I don't know how many other books have been written about him until know, and which one is the "best", but I can assure you that the authors are very serious and not a kind of nationalists or racists etc. The things you say seem OK with me, but I am not in a position to confirm them (as I am not in a position to deny them). I just don't know, and is not my business to know. That's why I am turning to the specialists about it which is also the standard procedure here. From your somewhat annoyed answer I understand you must be Turk, if so I want to ensure you that I don't have the slightest anti-Turkish sentiment and from what I have seen the Turk editors are among the most logical and low tone editors I have "met" in WP. So please don't make aggressive characterizations ("ridiculous" etc.) against me since I am not quoting myself, only a by definition neutral source, being written by a group of scientists who have written many other studies and from what I have seen until now (and I believe I am not wrong), nobody had called their work ridiculous or racist.--79.166.157.163 (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I found that 9 out of 10 are actually saying nothing about his origin except that he was nephew of Kemal Reis and a Turkish Admiral which is not disputed by anyone. In detail:
"...born at the naval base of Gelibolu(later known to "Westerners" as Gallipoli during the First World War) as a nephew of Kemal Reis, the most famous Turkish admiral and privateer or "corsair" of the period. He seems to have joined his uncle's ship at the age of 11 or 12...: say born in Gallipoli (in the European part of Turkey), nothing about his origin.
"...He was born at the town of Karaman, near Konya, Turkey. The exact date of his birth is unknown. In his early youth he joined his uncle Kemal Reis...: say born in Karaman of the Asian Anatolia, the same
"...Piri Re'is, the nephew of a well-known Turkish mariner, learned seafaring and navigation from his uncle while both were serving in the Ottoman navy..." the same
"...This map was drawn by Piri Ibn Haji Mehmed, known as the nephew of Kemal Reis, in Gallipoli, in the month of muharrem of the year 919..." the same
"...the Turkish cartographer Piri Reis..."
"...was drawn up in 1513 Turkish admiral, Piri Ibn Haji Mehmed..."
"...by a famed 16th century Turkish admiral and mapmaker, Piri Re'is..."
"...Piri Reis, the outstanding Turkish cartographer of the sixteenth century, won international recognition for his geographical book on the Mediterranean Sea..."
"...The so-called Piri Re'is map-named after the famous Turkish admiral who created it in 1513..."The only relevant to his origin reference is that of Stefano Carboni, page 311 ("...Turk originally from the Anatolian province of Karaman, and we may assume the same origin for Had Mehmed...") although the author is careful saying that this is an assumption will be included in the text together with another two references saying that he was by origin 1.Greek and 2.Jew
--79.166.157.163 (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
If you can not understand what is written that is your problem. Dont Edit then, and do not remove my sources. You have also changed my other 3 articles with no reason. 
I have explained it so many times, and I have researched this subject.
Your ip shows that you are from Athens, Greece.
I get the idea that your only purpose is to claim him as a Greek, because he is a famous Ottoman Turk.
There is no sentence literally in my sources like: (by origin he was Turkish), But this does not mean he is not Turkish, It is already known in my sources that he is a ethnic Turk, that is why it says nothing about his "christian greek jew" origin. And that is why they call him a Turkish admiral and nephew of Kemal Reis.
There is nothing else written about his origin, and that means he has no other origin.
You can not even understand what you read. 
It is written by Piri in his map(1513):
that he is the nephew of Kemal Reis, which is a Turk, and that means, his uncle was a Turk, that means piri was also a Turk, can you not understand this?
He writes in his map: My uncle is KEMAL REIS. He writes: I am the son of HAJJI MEHMED, that is a muslim name, I explained before about the name of his father and what it means and why it can't be a christian greek name, 
his father is the brother of his uncle who is also a muslim, this is proven by his OWN MAP MADE IN 1513 BY HIS OWN HANDS.
He writes in his map:
'This map was drawn by Piri Ibn Haji Mehmed, known as the nephew of Kemal Reis, in Gallipoli, in the month of muharrem of the year 919...
His Father is muslim, his uncle is  muslim, how can the child of  a muslim be a christian, that is not possible,
Your source's claim is wrong! And probably did not know his fathers name or anything about Kemal Reis.
Your sources are not only written About Piri's life it is about many other subjects so they can make mistakes and they did make mistakes about Piri's origin.
You use only these few unreliable wrong sources as facts. 
You are ignoring all other serious sources who don't say anything about his probably christian greek origin. 
Stefano Carboni, page 311 ("...Turk originally from the Anatolian province of Karaman, and we may assume the same origin for Had Mehmed...") 
This source is about Kemal Reis's origin, not Piri, Had Mehmed is the brother of Kemal, it means Hajji Mehmed, the father of Piri.
So his son, Piri, was also a Turk. And this is not the only relevant.
The author writes "assume" and that shows how biased he is. He can not accept a Turkish origin because of racism, not because of any source.
Your sources do not explain anything.
They just say that Piri Reis was probably of christian or greek origin and that he converted later to Islam????
According to your source Piri was a christian or Jew what was Piri's father then what was Kemal reis then?
Also Greek or Jew?
Where is this based on??
I will tell you ON NOTHING  only  ignorance.
After that you say I don't know about Piri Reis. You say I am only using the books of specialists. 
I also use the bookS of specialists. Authors can also make mistakes even if they are specialists. 
What is their proof of his christian greek origin? How do they know this? 
They dont explain anything, writers can also make mistakes. 
But I explained to you why Piri cannot be a christian greek by origin by using reliable and logical references from many books.
I have at least 5 serious book where there is nothing written about that he was probably christian or greek or jew.
And then you delete these sources. 
In these sources it is written about Piri that he was a Turkish admiral, that Kemal Reis was his uncle and that their family originally came from Karaman. Turkish means that he was a Turk.
Your sources say that Piri was POSSIBLY a christian greek. Other serious books about Piri dont say anything about his possibly christian greek origin.
Your goal is just to write here on wikipedia that he was not a Turk.  
That source about the Jewish origin is the most ridiculous (probably the only source in the entire world), in the book there is nowhere written anything about Piri's uncle Kemal Reis, or his own name and his fathers name in the map of 1513.
I investigated the author.
David Hatcher Childress,is totally unreliable and knows nothing about the origin of Piri, look what is written about him in his wikipedia article:
David Hatcher Childress (born 1957) is an American author and publisher of books on topics in alternative history and historical revisionism. His works cover such subjects as pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, Tesla, the Knights Templar, lost cities and vimana aircraft.[1] Childress claims no academic credentials as a professional archaeologist nor in any other scientific field of study.[1]
1. "Atlantis, Ho!". Chicago Reader. September 8, 2006. http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/roguearchaeologist. Retrieved 2009-01-02.
I am going to change  my version back, Wikipedia is not only based on you and your own edits.
This is Wikipedia. Do not change it back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC) 

His Father is muslim, his uncle is  muslim, how can the child of  a muslim be a christian, that is not possible,
Your source's claim is wrong! And probably did not know his fathers name or anything about Kemal Reis.
Your sources are not only written About Piri's life it is about many other subjects so they can make mistakes and they did make mistakes about Piri's origin.
You use only these few unreliable wrong sources as facts. 
You are ignoring all other serious sources who don't say anything about his probably christian greek origin. 
Stefano Carboni, page 311 ("...Turk originally from the Anatolian province of Karaman, and we may assume the same origin for Had Mehmed...") 
This source is about Kemal Reis's origin, not Piri, Had Mehmed is the brother of Kemal, it means Hajji Mehmed, the father of Piri.
So his son, Piri, was also a Turk. And this is not the only relevant.
Your sources do not explain anything.
They just say that Piri Reis was probably of christian or greek origin and that he converted later to Islam????
According to your source Piri was a christian or Jew what was Piri's father then what was Kemal reis then?
Also Greek or Jew?
Where is this based on??
I will tell you ON NOTHING  only  ignorance.
After that you say I don't know about Piri Reis. You say I am only using the books of specialists. 
I also use the bookS of specialists. Authors can also make mistakes even if they are specialists. 
What is their proof of his christian greek origin? How do they know this? 
They dont explain anything, writers can also make mistakes. 
But I explained to you why Piri cannot be a christian greek by origin by using reliable and logical references from many books.
I have at least 5 serious book where there is nothing written about that he was probably christian or greek or jew.
And then you delete these sources. 
In these sources it is written about Piri that he was a Turkish admiral, that Kemal Reis was his uncle and that their family originally came from Karaman. Turkish means that he was a Turk.
Your sources say that Piri was POSSIBLY a christian greek. Other serious books about Piri dont say anything about his possibly christian greek origin.
Your goal is just to write here on wikipedia that he was not a Turk.  
That source about the Jewish origin is the most ridiculous (probably the only source in the entire world), in the book there is nowhere written anything about Piri's uncle Kemal Reis, or his own name and his fathers name in the map of 1513.
I investigated the author.
David Hatcher Childress,is totally unreliable and knows nothing about the origin of Piri, look what is written about him in his wikipedia article:
David Hatcher Childress (born 1957) is an American author and publisher of books on topics in alternative history and historical revisionism. His works cover such subjects as pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, Tesla, the Knights Templar, lost cities and vimana aircraft.[1] Childress claims no academic credentials as a professional archaeologist nor in any other scientific field of study.[1]
1. "Atlantis, Ho!". Chicago Reader. September 8, 2006. http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/roguearchaeologist. Retrieved 2009-01-02.
I am going to change  my version back, Wikipedia is not only based on you and your own edits.
This is Wikipedia. Do not change it back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC) 

First you are wrong there is nothing about Piri Reis in the p.311 of Stefano Carboni book and nowhere in the book says "... we may assume the same origin for Had Mehmed..." you must confuse it with John Brian Harley's book. Carboni is innocent, Harley is the "racist". So pity for him "not accepting a Turkish origin because of racism, not because of any source!", since according to WP he was a geographer, cartographer, and map historian at the universities of Birmingham, Liverpool, Exeter and Wisconsin–Milwaukee and founding co-editor of The History of Cartography...
Look, what you have did is simply a misconception. You went to the Google books and asked for any book that includes the expression "Piri Reis, Turkish" and then you put every relevant book as a source of Piri being of Turkish origin. This is why almost every source says he was a "Turkish admiral". That he was a Turkish admiral and/or geographer nobody disputes it. What you don't seem to understand is that these books comment on his role or profession not his origin. That is why you couldn't find any source saying "Turkish origin" other than that of J. B. Harley's in which he is careful to note that this is an assumption of his. As for David Hatcher Childress of course he did not claim academic credentials as a professional archaeologist etc. but in any case his work is not so unrelated as some of your sources which include authors like Cheryl Woolsey Desjarlais (My best friend Jesus, and Moments for Moms, Creative Devotions etc.) E. Randall Floyd, a motion picture screenwriter (Ghost Lights: And Other Encounters With the Unknown, The Good the Bad and the Mad, In the Realm of Ghosts and Hauntings etc.) Tabish Khair, a poet (Where Parallel Lines Meet, Fear Factor:Terror Incognito, Babu Fictions etc.).
Then you come and say "It is already known in my sources that he is a ethnic Turk", but the only source that comments on his ethnic origin (Harley), is according to you "biased and racist" since it assumes he was a Turk by origin based upon his father's name which is exactly what you are doing for two days now ORing. As for the rest of the non-Turkish origin sources, Philip Khuri Hitti was a scholar of Islam, professor in Princeton and Columbia Universities while Viktor Rutenburg is a well established academic of the 13-17th century history much respected both in West and East who has written tons of studies of undisputed quality and never had been accused for "unreliability" or "racism". You also say that these books have not as their object Piri Reis but not one of your sources either have. (That alone is not necessarily make them useless as references in either cases). You must understand that our work here is to write a text using reliable references not to write what we believe nor who we believe, or to write critics for their books.
Some other things: Together with any mention of his non-Turk origin and the related sources you had deleted almost every word I added in the article although they had nothing to do with his origin and keep restoring the 17th century's map which has nothing to do with Piri Reis since it was created a century after his death, without saying a word about. (Other that the removing of the map was a "vandalism"). Right now the text is a mess full of OR, saying unfounded things like "startling accuracy of which is still a mystery", or that "Piri Reis drew these charts during his travels around the Mediterranean Sea with his uncle Kemal Reis" (while in his own text clearly says that he used foreign maps and named them' etc.) on which you added about Columbus' map source he clearly mentions "Recent discoveries and a deeper understanding of his Books of navigation prove that this was far from the case." without citing any reference it would prove that Piri was lying about. Not to mention his "Alexander era" map reference.
I noticed that you also preferred to mention as place of his birth only the Anatolian (Karaman) version avoiding to mention the Gallipoli, although the related source about Gallipoli is yours (Tabish Khair, Other routes: 1500 years of African and Asian travel writing) and you handtyped the exact phrase ("Muhuddin Piri Reis was born at the naval base of Gelibolu later known to "Westerners" as Gallipoli during the First World War"). I presume that the reason of your preference to present in the article only the Anatolian origin is because this sounds more compatible with the Turkish origin than that of the European one.
You have also removed any reference about the third version of his book, where I am mentioning the later added maps, also without any explanation. I presume that if the sentence remained, then it would have been impossible to restore the 17th century map since then it would be obvious to anyone that this map is not his but part of the much later revised edition.
Your activity seems to be unencyclopaedic and only caring 1.to push a Turkish origin of Piri by deleting any to the contrary mentioned sources, then criticizing the opposing to the non-Turk origin works and authors inside the article's text and 2.to promote Piri's original work concealing his own references.--79.166.144.100 (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In my edit I included most of your sources and text that make sense avoiding OR and I included the contents you deleted without a word. Read before reverting.--79.166.144.100 (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I can't convince you, because you just want him to be not of Turkish origin and also you are changing other sentences. From wich is clear that you are biased. You changed for example serving in the Ottoman navy in to enganging in piracy.
It sounds more negative.
Your sources do not explain anything write the sentences about what is said about Piri in your references.
I found serious sources, which say nothing about his possibly greek, christian or jewish origin, but if they would write Piri was from christian origin. You would happily accept them as serious sources, without even asking or thinking how they know this.
I don't have said anything about the authors of your books, but the claim that he was jewish sounded so ridiculous to me I researched who the writer was of such a claim out of curiosity and I found that information about him in Wikipedia.
Your are unencyclopedic, deleting all my sources(where he is called Turkish, this probably hurts you), I am not doing original reseach, This is from serious authors. 
His origin is not disputable, Ibn means 'son of' in arabic. He writes this in his own map, this sentence is translated in many sources, this is not original research, it has already been researched. 
Some  authors make mistakes about Piri's life this is because they know little about the Ottoman empire or muslim culture, it is logically they make mistakes, their sources are not without error.

Write here what your sources write about his origin. Or are you using fake sources?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 

Your answer say nothing about what I told you above. There is not a single source to dispute that he was engaging in piracy. That had served in the Ottoman navy and "for many years" is in my text. Read before deleting. "My sources" say exactly what the text attached to them say. Most of your sources are present in the article although are useless for the reason I already explained above. The only ref saying anything about his Turk origin has been used to support the Turkish version of his origin. You didn't say anything the authors of the books? Have you any idea of what you write? The sentence "The author writes "assume" and that shows how biased he is. He can not accept a Turkish origin because of racism, not because of any source!" above, is or isn't yours? Anyway, I am not interested in your opinion about the errors very serious university professors you are calling racists had made. Stop mass removing referenced text and answering with irrelevant generalities. --79.166.144.100 (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Write what your sources say. Do you use fake sources?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 
Not before you stop reverting everything with no reason--79.166.144.100 (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
It has a reason. My version is more neutral and better it doesn't start with Piri Reis was possibly Greek christian or jew and after that that he could also be a Turk, like it already is accepted that he is not a Turk. 
I found more sources which do not say anything about his possible non-turk origin.
And about your information of his world map. Write that information in his world map article. The map you add is a map which belongs in his world map article.
The map of Europe is a copy but it is a copy from his book Kitabi Bahriye, so it belongs in this article.
You have also made more weird eddits like deleting the name of his book Kitabi Bahriye into a book about navigation
Most authors who wrote about Piri Reis didnt mention anything about Piris possible christian, greek or jewish origin so it is most likely to accept that Piri was a Turk.  And in my version i also added the posible greek or jewish origin with explanation. My version is better and with more explanation the just writing 'his origin is debatable'
Dont revert my version!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 

You understand nothing of what I told you. The map is indeed from Kitabi Bahriye, but is among the added maps of the third edition. The third edition is of the 17th century, a hundred years after his death. His original maps don't presenting Black Sea. All these are explained in the version you keep deleting. Your version is criticizing the sources as to discredit those which are disagree with the Turkish theory although are from credible researchers and that is OR. In your version you use numerous refs that are just saying that he was a Turk Admiral which are irrelevant for what you want to support about his origin. And you omit many other things like the maps he had been use to create his. I told all these before but you answered nothing and continued to revert. You are not discussing to the points on what I am telling you, you avoid any serious discussion and keep reverting saying irrelevant things. This will not solve the dispute. Understand that. Stop reverting and start discussing honestly.--79.166.144.100 (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
What is written in your sources about him? Write here. Don't change it back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 

Version of DragonTiger23
Piri Reis full name was Hadji Ahmed Muhiddin Piri[3], he was the son of Hadji Mehmed[4][5] , the brother of the famous Kemal Reis[6][7]. He was likely born as a Muslim Turk[8][9][10][11] [12][13][14][15][16] (this information is based on the fact that his father has a muslim name and his uncle is Kemal Reis, who is likely a muslim Turk from Karaman) between 1465 and 1470 in Gallipoli, part of the Ottoman Empire[17]. Piri was the nephew of the famous Kemal Reis. The family was originally from Karaman, Central Anatolia.[18]
However there are some sources, which write about Piri Reis' possibly Christian Greek origin[19][20],or a Jew[21], but it is not known on what the authors have based this information on. They don't mention about Piri's uncle Kemal Reis and Piri's father. Most other authors don't mention anything about this possibly Christian Greek or Jew origin of Piri Reis. The author, who writes about Piri's possible Jewish origin claims no academic credentials as a professional archaeologist nor in any other scientific field of study.[22]
Young Piri joined his uncle Kemal Reis, a well-known privateer and seafarer of the time. When the Ottomans were at war, together with his uncle and until his death he participated for many years in the fights against Christian navies Spanish, Genoese and Venetian, including the First Battle of Lepanto (Battle of Zonchio) in 1499 and Second Battle of Lepanto (Battle of Modon) in 1500. When his uncle Kemal Reis died in 1511, Piri returned to Gallipoli and began to write his book Kitab-ı Bahriye (Book of Navigation). In 1513 he produced his first world map, the startling accuracy of which is still a mystery. The hypothesis has been that said map was based on some 20 older maps and charts which he had collected, including charts personally designed by Christopher Columbus. Recent discoveries and a deeper understanding of his Books of navigation prove that this was far from the case.

Version of  79.166.144.100
Little is known about the identity of Piri Reis. Even the name roughly translated means "sea captain"[3]. His origin is debatable, with sources referring to him as Christian, possibly Greek [4], Greek [5], Jew [6], or ethnic Turk [7]. Hadji Ahmed Muhiddin Piri [8] was born either in Gallipoli of the European part of the Ottoman Empire [9] [10] or in Karaman, central Anatolia [11], but the exact date of his birth is unknown. He was son of Hadji Mehmed Piri, brother of the Admiral Kemal Reis [12] and began engaging in piracy when he was young, in 1481, following his uncle Kemal Reis, a well-known pirate and seafarer of the time who later became famous Admiral of the Ottoman fleet. [13] During the periods the Ottomans were at war, together with his uncle, he participated for many years in the naval fights against Spanish, Genoese and Venetian, including the First Battle of Lepanto (Battle of Zonchio) in 1499 and Second Battle of Lepanto (Battle of Modon) in 1500. When his uncle Kemal Reis died in 1511, Piri returned to Gallipoli and began to write his book about navigation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 

Can you do something more than to copy-paste one of the many paragraphs you keep reverting? Immediately above, you are telling me why you think your version is better and below is my answer. Since you never answered, can you comment on this as to continue the dialogue?--79.166.144.100 (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Your references say Piri Reis was POSSIBLY of christian greek origin. They do not explain on what this is based on, and probably based on nothing. 
In my references they say Turkish admiral. They dont say Piri Reis was originally Turkish. But these sources are very important because they also dont say anything about his christian and greek origin. And almost every author who wrote something about Piri Reis didnt write anything about this possibly christian greek origin. That is why these are important because most sources do not say anything about his possibly greek christian origin. And in my version I wrote about the possibly 3 origins of Piri Reis and the most likely is Turkish. 
You dont like my version because it shows the possibility of him being Turkish is greater than being christian, greek or jew. 
In your version there is no explanation and your version shows without explanation that he is most likely a greek christian.
My problem is not claiming him to be Turkish.
There are many famous Ottomans who were of non-Turkish origin, but those people wrote it about their selves what they were and Ottomans wrote it in their documents and they did not falsify origins of people. Because nationalism didnt exist and they didnt care.
My problem is that in Wikipedia and most other books about Ottomans, famous Ottomans are always without research and sources claimed to be of non-Turkish/non-muslim origin.
And besides his origin does not matter, what matters is that he was (almost his entire life according to you) his entire life a respected and famous Ottoman muslim, who spoke Turkish ,whos map is written in Turkish and who fought his whole life against Christians, including Greeks. Together with his uncle who also fought his entire life against Christians and Greek.
Claiming him a Greek origin doesn't give credit to Christianity or Greeks. 
But alright go ahead then, claim him, if that makes you happy. 
Delete my version, my explanation, delete the reality if that makes you happy. 
Maybe other people will involve and maybe they will see the reality.
For now racist nationalist Greek from Athens writes his own version of the history.  
I am a serious contributor to wikipedia, I have no nationalist agenda.
I tried to write the reality and I did not succeed, The power of Greek nationalism was greater than the truth in Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 

I don't want to comment on the last, it's better to avoid sharp wording and to focus on the issue. All in all my position is below. I have posted it today morning but I feel that it never took an answer.
First you are wrong in your comment ("the author writes "assume" and that shows how biased he is. He can not accept a Turkish origin because of racism, not because of any source") about a reference of yours. There is nothing about Piri Reis in the page 311 of the Stefano Carboni book and nowhere in the book says that "... we may assume the same origin for Had Mehmed...etc." you must confuse it with John Brian Harley's book. Carboni is innocent, Harley is the "racist". So pity for him "not accepting a Turkish origin because of racism, not because of any source!", since according to WP he was a geographer, cartographer, and map historian at the universities of Birmingham, Liverpool, Exeter and Wisconsin–Milwaukee and founding co-editor of The History of Cartography...
What you have did with most of your references is simply a misconception. You went to the Google books and asked for any book that includes the expression "Piri Reis, Turkish" and then you put every relevant book as a source of Piri being of Turkish origin. This is why almost every source says he was a "Turkish admiral". That he was a Turkish admiral and/or geographer nobody disputes it. What you don't seem to understand is that these books comment on his role or profession not his origin. That is why you couldn't find any source saying "Turkish origin" other than that of J. B. Harley's in which he is careful to note that this is an assumption of his. As for David Hatcher Childress of course he did not claim academic credentials as a professional archaeologist etc. but in any case his work is not so unrelated as some of your sources which include authors like Cheryl Woolsey Desjarlais (My best friend Jesus, and Moments for Moms, Creative Devotions etc.) E. Randall Floyd, a motion picture screenwriter (Ghost Lights: And Other Encounters With the Unknown, The Good the Bad and the Mad, In the Realm of Ghosts and Hauntings etc.) Tabish Khair, a poet (Where Parallel Lines Meet, Fear Factor:Terror Incognito, Babu Fictions etc.).
Then you come and say "It is already known in my sources that he is a ethnic Turk"(see above), but the only source that comments on his Turkish ethnic origin (Harley), is according to you "biased and racist" since it assumes he was a Turk by origin based upon his father's name which is exactly what you are doing for two days now ORing. As for the rest of the non-Turkish origin sources, Philip Khuri Hitti was a scholar of Islam, professor in Princeton and Columbia Universities while Viktor Rutenburg is a well established academic of the 13-17th century history much respected both in West and East who has written tons of studies of undisputed quality and never had been accused for "unreliability" or "racism". You also say that these books have not as their object Piri Reis but not one of your sources either have. (That alone is not necessarily make them useless as references in either cases). You must understand that our work here is to write a text using reliable references not to write what we believe nor who we believe, or to write critics for their books.
Some other things: Together with any mention of his non-Turk origin and the related sources you had deleted almost every word I added in the article although they had nothing to do with his origin and keep restoring the 17th century's map which has nothing to do with Piri Reis since it was created a century after his death, without saying a word about. (Other that the removing of the map was a "vandalism"). Right now the text is a mess full of OR, saying unfounded things like "startling accuracy of which is still a mystery", or that "Piri Reis drew these charts during his travels around the Mediterranean Sea with his uncle Kemal Reis" (while in his own text clearly says that he used foreign maps and named them' etc.) on which you added about Columbus' map source he clearly mentions "Recent discoveries and a deeper understanding of his Books of navigation prove that this was far from the case." without citing any reference it would prove that Piri was lying about. Not to mention his "Alexander era" map reference.
I noticed that you also preferred to mention as place of his birth only the Anatolian (Karaman) version avoiding to mention the Gallipoli, although the related source about Gallipoli is yours (Tabish Khair, Other routes: 1500 years of African and Asian travel writing) and you handtyped the exact phrase ("Muhuddin Piri Reis was born at the naval base of Gelibolu later known to "Westerners" as Gallipoli during the First World War"). I presume that the reason of your preference to present in the article only the Anatolian origin is because this sounds more compatible with the Turkish origin than that of the European one.
You have also removed any reference about the third version of his book, where I am mentioning the later added maps, also without any explanation. I presume that if the sentence remained, then it would have been impossible to restore the 17th century map since then it would be obvious to anyone that this map is not his but part of the much later revised edition.
May please have an answer about the above. Not the first or the last. For everyone since every single is connected with a paragraph which you insist in removing it. What happened until now is that you always comment about the origin and delete everything, even though they have nothing to do with the origin issue. Thanks.--79.166.144.100 (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed this map as original research. The image has no sources, and it contradicts at least one reliable source. The map only extends 5 degrees south of the equator, according to "Report No. 83-205 SPR The UFO Enigma, Marcia S. Smith, 20 June 1983, Congressional Research Service, Appendix B quoting "Some trust in chariots : sixteen views on Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the gods", editors Thiering, Barry and Edgar Castle, West books, 1972.
File:Piri_Reis_map_interpretation_RG.jpg is another unsourced interpretation. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
In any case, File:Piri_Reis_map_interpretation_RG.jpg, though unsourced, makes a heck of a lot more sense, and it more likely supports the "5 degrees south of the equator" claim. Whoever thinks that File:Piri Reis map interpretation.jpg is correct is out of their rocker! Sadly, some people don't know how to read a map.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 06:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

See the Ptolemaic maps of Britain with a 90° turn at the Scottish border but otherwise fairly accurate features. Just from the provided image, it looks like the exact same situation: the coastlines do roughly match except for the bend created by a mix-up in someone's chain of connections of long/lat readings from a single source. That said, yeah, sure something so nonobvious should be explained and cited. — LlywelynII 11:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm finding a number of sources which say his name was "Muhiddin Piri"[1] [2]. Hadji is a title, I don't know about the Ahmed. Our current source is a fringe author. Doug Weller (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the following passage from the section "In popular culture":

"These video games mention Piri Reis because of the large number of books and tv shows which draw on Charles Hapgood's Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, a book which claims that advanced civilizations existed on Earth during the Ice Age. These claims are now refuted."
Regardless of Hapgood's extremely dubious scientific credibility, this is baseless speculation - the games in question make no reference to Hapgood or his book.

Remember to sign your posts. — LlywelynII 11:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

the book at this point. There's enough and it deserves it, not least because Wikicommons has an entire manuscript that should get more love. This article itself is becoming unbalanced with the length of the treatment versus the namespace. Note, however, that other articles currently spell/misspell it and translate/mistranslate it in several different ways: Kitab-ı Bahriye, Kitab-i Bahriye, and Kitab-i-Bahriye. They should be standardized when the article is created. — LlywelynII 11:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This really belongs at a new article on the book itself 

Lepore, Fortunato; et al. (2013), "Looking at the Kitab-i Bahriye of Piri Reis", e-Perimetron (PDF), vol. 8, pp. 85–94.
but may also have points on Piri Reis himself. — LlywelynII 11:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you still working on this? It seems correct to have an article on the Kitab-ı Bahriye. Several other language wikis already have one.[3][4][5][6][7][8] The current structure of his works in this article is a bit odd. I think it should be something like:
Works
Piri Reis map of 1513
Kitab-ı Bahriye
Piri Reis 1528 world map
There won't likely be enough secondary coverage to write a separate article for the 1528 map. This article could also do with a legacy section. Rjjiii (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
LlywelynII, if you don't mind, I'd like to go ahead and reformat the article somewhat, but will work around the Kitab-ı Bahriye section to avoid disrupting anything you have planned or in progress. Rjjiii (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and rolled this out. I haven't touched the Kitab-ı Bahriye section, except to relocate images and normalize spelling. A lot of content there does not seem to be about the book and can be stripped out, Rjjiii (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
In the oven: Draft:Kitab-ı Bahriye
I brought over the gallery from the Turkish version and copied the list of manuscripts. I don't have any concrete plans. I'm hesitant to try to directly port things over that are not cited, but the images, infobox, and so on should work out okay. Rjjiii (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: I considered reverting but am asking for an explanation first. "Not about the book" didn't seem a good reason. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: All of those bits were in the "Kitab-ı Bahriye" section but seemed to be about the 1513 world map. "Not about the book" meant not about the Kitab-ı Bahriye. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii (ii) Maybe I missed something, but shouldn't they be somewhere? Doug Weller talk 13:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Which parts should be where? Much of what was removed is covered in the "Piri Reis map of 1513" section or the linked article on the map. I don't mind reworking it into an appropriate place, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll leave it to you. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Offering more of an explanation. Here is one bit cut out from the "Kitab-ı Bahriye" section: "In his text, he also wrote that he used the "maps drawn in the time of Alexander the Great" as a source, but most likely he had mistakenly confused the 2nd-century Greek geographer Ptolemy with Alexander's general of the same name (of four and a half centuries before), since his map is similar with the Jan of Stobnica famous reproduction map of Ptolemy, printed in 1512. Ptolemy's Geographia had been translated in Turkish after a personal order of Mehmed II some decades before.(Soucek 1996, p. 73)"[9] That is about the 1513 map. It cites a source, but it only verifies the last line. The whole part about Jan of Stobnica's map is WP:OR and it doesn't really make sense. It implies that they're both using Ptolemy to map the Americas, but Ptolemy died in AD 170. Soucek is talking about Piri Reis's comments on sources. WP:RS say that Piri Reis' comments on "Alexander the Great" are likely about Alexander the Great. This is covered in the linked article, Piri Reis map.
Here is another bit from a paragraph that begins about the book and switches abruptly to the 1513 world maps: "There are thirty legends around the world map, twenty-nine in Turkish and one in Arabic; the latter gives the date as the month Muharrem of AH 919 AH (i.e. the spring of 1513) but most studies have identified the more probable date of completion as 1521."[10] The first bit about the "legends" is already covered in Piri Reis and Piri Reis map. The second bit about the map being finished in 1513 or 1521 is the result of confusing the two works. The world map is dated to 1513. He could not have completed it in 1521 because he gave it away in 1517. The first version of the book was from 1521. Both dates are already given in the appropriate places though, so there isn't anything to retain.
I plan to look through the biography and write according to WP:RS next. Maybe a couple of the removed lines about his background can be worked in there. 
The section about whether his parents were Christians should be snipped. The editor above who advocated for keeping it was blocked for anti-Turkish vandalism and POV-pushing.[11] It's possible that the Greek parent is a trope or a specific confusion with Turgut Reis who had a similar career and was active during the same time period. A lot of major figures in the Ottoman military/navy were born Christian so it wouldn't be odd, but I don't see sources that provide evidence. There are WP:RS on the Ottoman Empire that talk about converts in the navy and Piri Reis (like Imagined, Embodied and Actual Turks in Early Modern Europe or Lords of the Sea: A History of the Barbary Corsairs), and they don't characterize him as a convert. Rjjiii (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii Go for it. Who Wrote That shows that the editor who added the OR, although experienced, had problems with their editing that I keep discovering. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I rewrote this from sources and am mostly done drafting. I used images from his book for media, but don't have strong opinions if somebody wants to change those to something different. It has 3 sections to break up the now longer bio, but I don't have strong opinions if anybody wants to rename or rework the section breaks. The previous bio mentions Piri Reis taking Kish Island, Qatar, and Bahrain Island. I didn't see that verified in the source and I wasn't sure about the chronology. For example, it made it sound like he occupied Qatar after fleeing Hormuz, but the source cited in the Qatar article[12] says that they voluntarily chose to join the empire in 1550, a couple years before he set out for Hormuz. If there are sources explaining what he did in these places and when, that should go into the section; I just didn't see it. Rjjiii (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There's an article up now for his book, the Kitab-ı Bahriye. I'd like to use the lead there with some slight changes to replace the current Kitab-ı Bahriye section in this article. I checked to make sure I was not leaving anything present in the section here out of the lead there, and found several things that should likely be left out of both. Explanations for each omission below.

"one of the most famous cartographical works of the period."
There is a correct way to read this statement (currently, it's one of the most famous cartographical works of the Ottoman period), but I think the incorrect way to read it is more likely (it was one of the most famous cartographical works during the sixteenth century).
"together with information about the local people of each country and city and the curious aspects of their culture."
The cited sources near this claim don't say it covered the "local people of each country". Some sources even contrast the book with the typical isolario which does take that approach, and they note how much the Kitab-ı Bahriye is focused on navigation.
"The Kitab-ı Bahriye has two main sections,"
This is not how reliable sources frame it. The main body of the Kitab-ı Bahriye is a series of chapters detailing locations. The second version starts with a lengthy preface in verse, but the first version has a much shorter preface that can't really be described as one of two main sections.
"This section also includes descriptions and drawings of the famous monuments and buildings in every city,"
This isn't accurate. Both versions show major cities. The second version has detailed miniatures painted on the charts, but they don't show the "monuments and buildings in every city". Some, like Venice and Istanbul, are very detailed.
"A century after Piri's death and during the second half of the 17th century, a third version of his book was produced, which left the text of the second version unaffected while enriching the cartographical part of the manuscript. It included additional new large-scale maps, mostly copies of the Italian (from Battista Agnese and Jacopo Gastaldi) and Dutch (Abraham Ortelius) works of the previous century."
This is verified by the source, but other more reliable sources don't frame it this way. They say that later maps incorporated new information when the book was copied. The most recent copies have the most new details on the maps, but also have roughly the same text as the early copies. I don't see this "third version" interpretation from other authors.
The list of manuscripts
The book's article includes all known surviving manuscripts in a set of 3 sortable tables that include highlights and wikilinks. This seems more appropriate in an article focused on the book.
Rjjiii (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The Guild of Copy Editors received a copy edit request of this article, which I began working on this past Friday. I thought to mention it because I'm aware you hope to move it forward to FA status. When I finish, I'll post another message here to let you know. Augnablik (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)