# Talk:Piri Reis map

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

"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)

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)

"mislabel the American mainland" 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: "To the east of Hispaniola and Puerto Rico is a peninsula containing a long north-south oriented coastline, which historians unanimously identify as the coast of Cuba, as described by Columbus in his diary." [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: "The Columbian conception of the transatlantic lands and islands (as recorded in Columbus's writings and the writings of his contemporaries) and the Toscanelli-Martellus-Rosselli-Behaim conception of the East Asian coast are combined with the geography of the West Indies and the Caribbean to produce the configurations of the Piri Reis map—configurations that are copied from Columbus's map. The Piri Reis map of 1513 and most other maps of the first two decades of the sixteenth century depict the results of the attempts at combining the reported geography of the new lands with the differing conceptions of East Asia envisaged by Ptolemy, Marco Polo, Toscanelli, Martellus, Columbus, and the Portuguese." [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." → "The northwestern coast combines features of Central America and Cuba into a mainland. Scholars attribute the peculiar arrangement of the Caribbean to a now-lost map from Columbus that merged Cuba with Asia and Hispaniola with Marco Polo's description of Japan. This reflects Columbus's erroneous claim that he had found a route to Asia." 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)

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

This idea was based on an ice-free Antarctica in 17,000 BC, but more recent ice core data shows the continent was last ice-free over ten million years ago. The hypothesis mistook the the topography of Antarctica below the ice with a hypothetical ice-free Antarctica without taking into account post-glacial rebound, and it relied on a limited 1949 survey. Modern studies don't show significant similarities to the coast beneath the ice or to a projected ice-free coastline.

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 (By whom?) with the template "", I don't have any concerns personally with the detail myself. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)