Talk:Gall–Peters projection

message: The 'controversy' section of this article, as discussed above, has some POV issues. It does not read like a neutral assessment of the debate, but rather a criticism of the Gall-Peters projection from someone opposed to it. I've edited it in an attempt to remove the non-neutral language; explanations of my removals are below:
* 'Crusaders' > 'Campaigns' - while perhaps accurate in this case, I don't think it's neutral to describe a political campaign as a 'crusade'.
* Removed '... for the simple fact that it lacked any remarkable properties. Peters's co-option of it did nothing to change that.' The fact that we discuss this map in such detail here suggests that it does have 'remarkable properties'; at least, some people thought it did, which is why there was such an effort to promote it in the 1970s. The amount of attention the projection has received makes it remarkable, if nothing else does. (Also, 'co-option' implies Peters 'borrowed' an existing projection rather than coming up with it himself.)
* 'eerily similar' > 'similar' - arguably an insertion of POV.
* 'any other of the long line of (perhaps) well-intentioned, zealous, but poorly informed predecessors' > 'any of his predecessors' - the inserted 'perhaps' here is a weak attempt to make this description more neutral. Not everyone who has proposed a new map projection in the past was 'zealous' and 'poorly informed' and it is POV to argue otherwise.
* Removed entirely: 'Indeed, most ironically, the only region lacking distortion happens to be along a latitude just south of Arno Peters's native Germany (and the opposite latitude in the southern hemisphere), not anywhere in the technologically underdeveloped world.' 'Ironically' is one of the words editors are specifically advised to avoid in Wikipedia articles, because its application is almost always disputed. This particular observation adds nothing to the article, and reads like an attempt to mock Peters and his political agenda.
The rest is basically acceptable, and I'll leave it for now. If you disagree with any of these edits, please discuss them below rather than just reverting. Terraxos (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the rest is basically acceptable. It still reads like an attack against Gall-Peters rather than a description of the controversy itself. I don't really contribute to Wikipedia at all and yet, reading this I felt compelled to make a comment here. It's pretty bad. 60.242.32.137 (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's objective that Peters didn't bother to consult with any professional geographers and cartographers before launching his publicity blitz -- and therefore reinvented an 1855 map projection without understanding that that's what he was doing, and held a completely untrue and blatantly factually false misimpression that professional geographers and cartographers supposedly loved Mercator.  And it's fairly objective that Peters gave forth with a lot of grandiose bombastic pompous rhetoric about how his projection was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but very few of these claims (other than the projection being equal area) held up and/or were relevant to choosing which map projection to use.  Peters seems to have had very good intentions in some respects, but his belief that no-one before him had ever thought as deeply as he did about the social implications of map projections, and his unwillingness to listen to people who knew a lot more than he did about certain technical issues, meant that he stirred up a lot of antagonism which hindered his stated goals. AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If presenting the facts as documented by the sources amounts to an attack, then there is no way to fix the article. We can deal with any specific problems someone wants to moot. Strebe (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues in Controversy section 

message: What should be discussed in the article are the actual properties, advantages & disadvantages of the map. There's no excuse for not allowing a complete advantages/disadvantages section.
If there's current & continuing controversy about those properties, advantages & disadvantages, then that's the only legitimate way that "controversy" should get into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.116.234 (talk • contribs) 22:23, June 14, 2022 (UTC)
--------------------------
I've again, only in my own text, replaced "Gall-Orthographic" with "Peters Projection" & "Peters map".
I left-out what I'd said about the moral, ethical, business & financial aspects of the projection's naming.   So there's no need to revert this most recent change that I've just made. It consists ONLY of changing "Gall-Orthographic" to "Peters Projection" & "Peters map", in my own text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.116.234 (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sign your talk page posts. Don't change posts that have already been replied to  (strike it properly if you must change something). Stop bludgeoning the talk page. Meters (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: The image of a map on a wall says that it shows the continents colored; how-ever, the pink-purple distinction does not represent any established definition or description of the world's continents. The far eastern sections of Russia are not part of Europe. 15:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to :File:Peters projection mural.jpg, you need to take that up with the mural artist. AnonMoos (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  continents