1320:
and his arrogance in insisting that the one and only answer is a map projection (Gall-Peters) which is actually not too great for world maps itself (true it's better than
Mercator, but that's a low bar), and his arrogance in not listening to people who knew more about certain relevant technical topics than he did, unnecessarily created yet further antagonism. Much of the interest or relevance of this projection is due to the contrast between Peters' constantly repeated loud declarations that Gall-Peters was the greatest thing since sliced bread and the semi-mediocre reality. Without the controversy or conflict, Gall-Peters would be a dusty semi-forgotten entry in Victorian archives which probably wouldn't deserve a separate Knowledge (XXG) article...
1096:
Mapthematics Map
Projection Forums for many years after that, and, having worn out their welcome in those venues long ago, moved on to use Knowledge (XXG) as a forum in blatant violation of Knowledge (XXG) policies. It bothers me to suggest more forceful action, but I, for one, am very tired of the endless sophistry, argumentativeness, repetitiveness, and rationalizations for why the rules -- which are there specifically to prevent people like them from doing what they are doing -- should not apply to them. The correct choice for this editor is to either (a) Get something published in a rigorous journal if they want to inject their beliefs into Knowledge (XXG) articles; or (b) Create their own forum and attract a following to promote their views there.
1268:
namecalling & consistent technique of false-quotes. I left there immediately after Strebe deleted a post of mine, over a semantic-quibble about the right wording to describe someone else's system of comparison-quantities...an issue that was really quite irrelevant to the topic, which consisted of Strebe's dislike for some comparison-quantities that I was proposing for equal-area maps. I then left because I felt that it wasn't productive to take the time or trouble to post to a forum whose administrator resorts to deletion when he disagrees.
885:
one example, I suggest that we remove the lengthy quote of the content of the resolution adopted by the various geographic organizations. We say that the resolution "rejected all rectangular world maps, a category that includes both the
Mercator and the Gall-Peters projections" That's enough. We already link to the wording, we need a source to confirm the number of organizations, but what we don't need is a word by word replay of something that does not even mention the Gall-Peters projection.
31:
64:
385:
364:
462:
85:
174:
1486:…&, as I emphasized in the post that Meters deleted, I don’t deny that some other maps (e.g. Mollweide, etc.) are more desirable where appearance is more important, and where all that’s needed is the countries’, continents’ & oceans’ relative-sizes & rough spatial-relation to eachother. …as opposed to a working-map on which measurement or distant-examination can be important & necessary.
22:
95:
1400:
AnonymousIP: "The fact that so many people initially believed that Gall-Orthographic (GO) was the first & only equal-area map is firm proof" -- Yes, firm proof that those people were very very ignorant about maps! I don't know why the Gall-Peters projection should be judged by Peters' success in
1238:
That WP policy-article, or maybe a different one, said that it's common for some WP editors to demand citation for obvious facts, for no other reason to prevent the inclusion of facts that they don't want in the article. No, I didn't make that up. That WP policy-article, maybe WP:BLUE, reported that
1172:
Move your Arno-feud to the Arno Peters article, & leave it out of the article that should only be about the Gall-Orthographic itself. It's now acknowledged, even by publishers of the map, that Peters made false statements about Gall-Orthographic, & those claims have been dropped. It's silly
1427:
Yes, at least in regards to the existence of such a thing as an equal-area map. Arno Peters’ publicizing-work corrected that ignorance of equal-area. Before Arno Peters, those people had never heard of equal-area maps, or that there could be such a thing. Peters gave them that information. ..with
1362:
Your personal opinion. I've told of advantages of GO, including large area & scale for a given width....moreso than other equal-area maps that have been in print..., & various advantages of cylindrical maps in general. Can we just agree to disagree on the admissibility of those advantages in
1293:
It bothers me to suggest more forceful action, but I, for one, am very tired of the endless sophistry, argumentativeness, repetitiveness, and rationalizations for why the rules -- which are there specifically to prevent people like them from doing what they are doing -- should not apply to them. The
1164:
I didn't say that the controversy-section didn't tell about properties (though it doesn't). I said that the controversy isn't relevant to the properties. The controversy isn't about the projection at all. It's about a silly grudge-feud that the
Cartographic-Community feels a need to wage...against a
1142:
o & I doubt that anyone is propagating his mis-statements anymore. The doubt is false, which the editor would know if they had done any diligence via a Web search. This article reports that the Boston Public School adopted the projection in 2017. Looking up why the school district did that would
1138:
Did he have a little help from circumstances? Sure, the compromise-map fashion had pretty much removed equal-area maps from atlases & classrooms (...where, I'd already pointed out, Mollweide had been very popular for more than a century.) ...resulting in there coming a time when few people had
1036:
The doubt is false, which the editor would know if they had done any diligence via a Web search. This article reports that the Boston Public School adopted the projection in 2017. Looking up why the school district did that would show the not-terribly-shocking fact that, no, there is a whole camp of
1319:
them. He had somewhat of a point with overemphasis of northern land areas in some non-equal-area projections, but he mangled this and unnecessarily created antagonism due to his complete abysmal ignorance of the fact that many or most professional cartographers actually hate
Mercator world maps --
1283:
It seems to me that we, long ago here, agreed to disagree about whether Gall-Orthographic's advantages & disadvantages could be included in the article. ...until such time as I have time to take the matter to WP administration. ...a probably lengthy process that I don't have time to initiate
781:
I suggest that this article, consisting mostly of scandal-gossip & oppositional POV, be moved to the Arno Peters
Knowledge (XXG) article, & that a separate, objective Gall-Orthographic article be written...about the projection itself, its properties, advantages & disadvantages. (...like
1146:
When Arno Peters died, the OTD publishing company, which was the official U.S. publisher of "Gall-Peters" (which is really Gall-Orthographic), didn't waste any time correcting Peters' mis-statements. ODT wasn't misleading anyone about those matters. ODT was probably the company that initially sold
1095:
This IP editor has a long history of using, and abusing, whatever forums they can find to promote their ever-changing musings about map projections, which they present in authoritative and universal terms. This started (as far as I can tell) with the PROJ mailing list in the mid 2000s, migrated to
978:
The article is full of Arno-history & "Cartographic-Community" vs Gall-Orthographic & Arno, & biased POV, while the mention of blatantly-obvious advantages is forbidden by the editors here. In a recent post here, I additionally mentioned some advantages had by all cylindrical maps, but
884:
I agree with Strebe. This is the article about the Gall-Peters projection, and content about the promotion of the projection and its reception belong in this article. There will be some overlap with the article about the person behind it. The reception section could use some judicious editing. For
1460:
Did Peters teach them the whole truth about the history of equal-area projections or cartography in general. Of course not. He wasn’t a cartographer. But he informed them that there could & should be equal-area map. He informed them of enough to get an equal-area map adopted by many important
1231:
No one has challenged my statements as false. I asked Strebe to confirm or refute my statement that, on Gall-Orthographic, everywhere between lat -60 & lat +60, a lat-band comprising 86.6% of the Earth's surface, the point-min-scale is at least as large as the scale along the equator. Strebe
844:
The Peters-vs-Cargographic-Community controversy only becomes momentarily, briefly, relevant, if someone asserts one of Peters' mis-statements. Then I suggest that you correct them about the mis-statement. Voila ! You've then dealt with the "controversy". It needn't hang over Gall-Orthographic
804:
Right now, the Arno Peters page seems to have an abbreviated version of the controversy section. I think it could make sense to switch them, so that the full controversy section appears there and an abbreviated version appears here. There should certainly be some mention of it on any page about
1717:
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.
1267:
I didn't get expelled from either forum. I left PROJ gradually, when I didn't have more to say there. When I later wanted to say something, I couldn't find PROJ on the net, but when I searched for map projection forums, I found
Mapthematics. I visited there for some time, despite Strebe's raging
966:
If I quote Peters about his advantage-claims, if I say that Gall-Orthographic is Peters' invention, or is the only equal-area map, or that its shapes & distances are accurate, etc., then I'd be making his errors relevant to the current discussion. But I'm not. ...& I doubt that anyone is
1352:
Though Peters certainly deserves credit for the wide-publicizing & successful advocacy of equal-area, and deserves to have GO called "Gall-Peters", I prefer not to call it that, because to do so would support the effort to discredit James Gall's 1855 CEA proposal by tying it to Arno Peters'
1123:
o who introduced the world to equal-area: False. The world had long had, and long commonly used diverse equal-area projections. The Werner projection projection appeared in the 1500s and was used in a lot of maps of that period. In the more relevant 20th century, the
Mollweide projection, Goode
935:
Anonymous IP -- I really don't see how "advantages and disadvantages" can be separated from "controversy". Almost the only "advantage" which everybody agrees on is it being equal-area (but of course there are many other equal-area projections). Most of the other "advantages" which Peters kept
1220:
o while the mention of blatantly-obvious advantages is forbidden by the editors here. The IP editor knows very well that this is false, having had explained to them myriad times on this page that the only impediment to having the article list advantages is the lack of citations, which are a
1153:
The administrators of the school systems of
Massachusetts, Boston, & the UK have heard from ODT, & from organizations like the Boston Map Library, and have surely heard long ago that Peter didn't invent Gall-Orthographic or equal-area, that Gall-Orthographic is not the only or first
1134:
After, but not before, Arno Peters' popularizing of equal-area, numerous progressive & religious organizations, U.N. organizations & departments, & school-systems, adopted an equal-area projection. Equal-area had not been anything like as well-known & popular before Peters'
821:
Peters claimed loudly and for a long period of time that his projection was the greatest thing since sliced bread, while many people who were more informed than he was on the subject of cartography saw glaring obvious flaws, so some mention of controversy is inherent to the subject matter.
1130:
I didn't say that Peters originated, introduced or invented equal-area. I said that he introduced the world to it. And the proof that the world to which he introduced it was previously unaware of equal-area, is that people believed that there'd never before been an equal-area projection.
1294:
correct choice for this editor is to either (a) Get something published in a rigorous journal if they want to inject their beliefs into Knowledge (XXG) articles; or (b) Create their own forum and attract a following to promote their views there. Strebe (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
1760:
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)
1470:
That enormous & disproportionate tropical Y-magnification, especially notoriously obvious for Africa, can be regarded as an announcement & display of the magnification that gives GO its enormous & unmatched (among maps that have been in print) area & scale advantages.
1227:
A low point-min-scale at a point where it's necessary to judge relative position of nearby points, or the relation of a point to a zone-boundary, can make a map entirely unusable if your classroom-desk isn't close enough to the wall-map. Scale matters, and that's blatantly obvious.
1196:
4. Positions & properties (such as NS & EW scales, & shape-distortions, & area-errors for non-equal-area maps) can be easily determined on a cylindrical, by a Positions & Properties Ruler. Less so for a pseudocylindrical, & not at all for other projections.
1348:
The fact that so many people initially believed that Gall-Orthographic (GO) was the first & only equal-area map is firm proof that all those people were quite unaware that there was such a thing as equal-area maps before Arno Peters widely-publicized Gall-Orthographic.
619:
Maybe it would be better if you would more carefully look at what you're replying to, if you want to reply. I didn't ask that the article state that GP is popular, & nor did I say that I was stating sources to be used to support the inclusion of that information in the
906:
Arno Peters, & your controversy with him, has nothing whatsoever to do with James Gall's uniquely-useful extreme CEA proposal of 1855. ...its definition, properties, merits, advantages & disadvantages. Your controversy is between you & Arno. Take it somewhere
751:
As for "reliable sources", the bigness of Gall-Orthographic (GO) (for a given width)is far too obvious to need a reliable source. ...as is the fact that that bigness makes more room for map-detail & lettering, & larger scale that makes the map readable at greater
1179:
Yes, not being cartographers, they didn't describe those properties well or accurately. But there are nonetheless such special desirable properties of cylindrical maps. Though my list of (at least some of) them has been deleted, it can be found via the "History" tab.
193:
1552:, which states "All material in Knowledge (XXG) mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable" and "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". Also,
1401:
impressing ignorant people. And if you simply look at a Gall-Peters world map with a critical eye, forgetting all political issues, then many people find it quite ugly (shape of Africa etc). In the eyes of those people, the Gall-Peters emperor has no clothes...
700:
No, with compromise projections filling the stage, it's completely understandable that so many people never heard of equal-area and believe that GP is the only equal-area projection. The heavy promoters of compromise-projections have only themselves to blame for
1341:
It was only after Peters' publicizing-work that numerous progressive organizations, religious organizations, U.N. organizations & agencies, & a number of school-systems, including those of Massachusetts, Boston, & the UK, adopted an equal-area map.
1143:
show the not-terribly-shocking fact that, no, there is a whole camp of supporters who perpetuate the Peters myths, and that the projection's use and effective promotion is tightly tied to that camp and its myths, and that it is ongoing and undiminished.
1559:
Anyway, I've taken a stab at shortening and cleaning up the controversy section. Let me know what ye think. I still think it would make sense to transfer the bulk of the remaining text to the Arno Peters page, and leave an even shorter section here.
1168:
By trying to tie the Gall-Orthographic projection to Arno Peters, is that supposed to discredit the map projection? It doesn't matter what Peters said about it. Its actual properties are entirely independent of what Peters claimed about it.
744:
As I said, I didn't claim to have reliable sources for the popularity of Gall-Orthographic (GO). As I just finished telling you, I merely mentioned its popularity as part of pointing out the Cartographic Community's failure to reduce that
1608:
page than it does here. Right now, that page has a short paragraph about it while this page has the long version, which seems a little backwards to me. It would make more sense if the short version was here, and the long version was on
1157:
The people at Oxford Cartographers include (not surprisingly) cartographers. I assure you that they don't believe Peters' false claims. ...& they've probably been map-suppliers that the UK school-systems have had contact with.
970:
In other words, Mr. Peters' mis-statements are relevant only when & if they're being used, stated & argued. Otherwise they aren't a relevant part of the discussion of Gall-Orthographic's properties, merits, advantages &
1437:
1. Nonsense. What I said was that GO shouldn’t be judged by the Arno Peters episode at all. …only by its own merits & actual properties, which (as I’ve been repeatedly saying) have nothing whatsoever to do with Arno Peters.
474:
974:
The "controversy" says nothing whatsoever about Gall-Orthographic's actual properties. It's misleading & prejudicial, & has no place in an article about the projection itself. Put the controversy at the Arno Peters
1210:
8. Cylindrical-Equal-Area is the 2nd simplest equal-area map (2nd only to the Sinusoidal). The Y formula of Gall-Orthographic is: 2Rsin(lat). Cylindricals' X formula is simpler too, because X isn't a function of lat.
1423:
AnonymousIP: "The fact that so many people initially believed that Gall-Orthographic (GO) was the first & only equal-area map is firm proof" -- Yes, firm proof that those people were very very ignorant about maps!
1661:
Just to clarify, I agree that it should be discussed here; I'm talking about whether the section here should be the main description of the controversy, or just a short paragraph with a reference to the Peters page.
1192:
3. The magnitude of scales & distortions, and the direction of the distortions, can easily be calculated, estimated & predicted, due to the simplicity of cylindrical maps. That can't be said for other maps.
1263:
This started (as far as I can tell) with the PROJ mailing list in the mid 2000s, migrated to Mapthematics Map Projection Forums for many years after that, and, having worn out their welcome in those venues...
1206:
7. Cylindrical maps fill their circumscribing rectangle, thereby making better use of rectangular display-space. ...thereby allowing a bigger map, with room to show more map-detail, and have larger scale.
962:
The history of Arno Peters' mis-statements (...made because he wasn't a cartographer--just a egalitarian-motivated publicist who introduced the world to equal-area)is entirely irrelevant to the projection's
902:
Incorrect. Though the controversy is about the projection, that doesn't mean that an article about the Gall-Orthographic(GO) projection should be about the controversy. It should be about the projecection
1345:(Mollweide had been very popular in atlases, schools & books, some time before that, for over a century, but had evidently been forgotten by the many people to whom Peters introduced equal-area.)
1762:
308:
658:
Regrettably, English no longer has a "You (plural)". "You" used to be plural-accusative, if I'm correct, and "Thou" was nominative singular. (Ye was nominative-plural) I meant "You" as plural.
655:
Not you only or specifically. I was referring to the "Cartographic Community", who, inexplicably, imagine themselves in what amounts to a religious-war against James Gall's 1855 CEA proposal.
1688:
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.
1691:
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.
1372:
Without the controversy or conflict, Gall-Peters would be a dusty semi-forgotten entry in Victorian archives which probably wouldn't deserve a separate Knowledge (XXG) article... AnonMoos
1824:
266:
1176:
Peters & his followers knew that cylindrical projections have special desirable properties not had by other maps. ...You know, the ones that I listed & Meters deleted :D
1037:
supporters who perpetuate the Peters myths, and that the projection's use and effective promotion is tightly tied to that camp and its myths, and that it is ongoing and undiminished.
1467::-D Gall-Orthographic (GO) is sh*t-ugly, at least when you first encounter it. In what I’ve been saying about GO, I never said that it was beautiful, or even that it wasn’t ugly.
35:
1378:
GO occupies a unique extreme position among equal-area world-maps that have been in print, in terms of area & scale-properties for a given width, & that merits attention.
1274:
Read WP:BLUE Some here are misrepresenting WP policy. My purpose at this talk-page was to propose & discuss improvements to the article, which is in keeping with WP policy.
322:
1063:
The IP editor knows very well that this is false, having had explained to them myriad times on this page that the only impediment to having the article list advantages is the
841:
Yes, it's inherent to the subject-matter about the controversy, not the the definition, properties, merits, advantages & disadvantages of James Gall's `1855 CEA proposal.
552:
To your point about popularity, if we can get good sources about the relative popularity of different projections by some metric, that's worth mentioning. Do you have any? --
697:
Well, Annon, what other one rivals it? Mollweide, of course, was very popular in atlases & classrooms, until it fell victim to the compromise-fashion. What else then?
1766:
1287:
So I was disappointed to hear the same old arguments trotted-out again when I returned this time, to post concluding-comments about my proposals to improve the article.
1814:
259:
252:
683:
Anonymous IP -- I find it very hard to believe the claim that "Gall-Peters is by far the most popular equal-area world-map. Nothing else comes even remotely close"...
1154:
equal-area map, & that Gall-Orthographic does not have accurate shapes & distances. Those were just things that Peters & his early followers used to say.
1740:
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.
1464:
And if you simply look at a Gall-Peters world map with a critical eye, forgetting all political issues, then many people find it quite ugly (shape of Africa etc).
722:
made that claim, and you have been asked to provide sources more than once. As I said "If you can't give us reliable sources, then please drop this. At some point
936:
proclaiming loudly and repeatedly over and over again were not accepted or considered important by many other people, and that's where the controversy started...
223:
197:
280:
238:
151:
1829:
1809:
1260:
Strong language, from someone unwilling to say whether my statement about the point-min-scale on Gall-Orthographic between lat -60 & +60 is true. :-D
1248:
In the passage directly below, Strebe is in violation of the provision that editors are not to characterize, or criticize the character of, other editors.
1161:
o The "controversy" says nothing whatsoever about Gall-Orthographic's actual properties. That's because the Controversy section is about the controversy.
913:
Sure, if someone is arguing that GO is the only equal-area map (...but I doubt that anyone is still even arguing that), then tell them that they're wrong.
1635:
I disagree. The controversy is about this projection, regardless of Peters' role in creating the controversy. The controversy should be discussed here. --
1839:
141:
1150:
Can I (or Strebe) speak for every person involved in the Boston school system? ...every administrator, every instructor, every student? Of course not.
486:
481:
1251:
This IP editor has a long history of using, and abusing , whatever forums they can find to promote their ever-changing musings about map projections
245:
439:
1844:
1819:
117:
219:
273:
1854:
1428:
the result that many progressive, religious, & U.N. organizations & agencies, & school-systems adopted an equal-area projection.
1356:
Yes, Arno wasn't a cartographer. We get that, & it's irrelevant to the projection itself. Arno wasn't even the projection's introducer.
429:
1548:
is not a policy, nor is it a guideline. It is just an essay written by a handful of editors. It does not overrule actual policies, like
1311:
I have little interest in continuing this discussion in general, but one of Anonymous IP's claims is very wrong -- Peters most definitely
294:
704:
If any significant number of people in the population like another equal-area map in numbers comparable to GP, I haven't heard about it.
1834:
1725:
1706:
1501:
I often say that GO's Africa & South-Americal look as if they were made of wax,& someone forgot to turn on the air-conditioner.
1487:
1379:
1295:
980:
914:
852:
789:
756:
705:
659:
624:
1242:
o Is that deletion permissible at an article talk-page? Without citations, the IP editor's repetitive musing on these "advantages"...
579:
1290:"...should not apply to them." Yes, the requirement for citation of Reliable-Sources doesn't apply to obvious facts. Read WP:BLUE.
979:
Meters deleted it. ...deleted mention of proposed improvement to the article. Is that deletion permissible at an article talk-page?
405:
108:
69:
845:
like some kind of haunting. Yes, we get it that you don't like Arno. Fine. Let's forget the "controversy" & put it behind us.
1447:
The whole point of teaching is that you’re informing someone who was previously “ignorant” of what you’re informing them about.
755:
But people here have been telling me that I can't say those obvious things in the article without citing a "reliable source" :-D
1777:
1224:
Yes, Strebe said that scale is insignificant. When asked why he thinks so, he chose not to share with us why he thinks so :-D
1147:"Gall-Peters" maps to the Boston school system. If so, then they were presented,offered & sold without Peters' false-claims.
1804:
910:
Yes, Mr. Peters said incorrect things. Get over it. That's about Peters. It's got nothing to do with Gall-Orthographic itself.
315:
204:
186:
44:
1849:
213:
805:
this projection, since the Arno Peters controversy is the reason it is notable today, but it doesn't have to be so long.
392:
369:
287:
1604:
There should be a full description of this controversy somewhere on Knowledge (XXG), but I think it belongs more on the
1139:
heard of equal-area maps, and the world was ripe for someone to (re)introduce it to them. That was done by Arno Peters.
623:
I only mentioned GP's popularity as part of mentioning to you that you haven't been very successful in suppressing it.
1022:
1017:
projection appeared in the 1500s and was used in a lot of maps of that period. In the more relevant 20th century, the
1525:. If others aren't convinced by your arguments yet, further posts are unlikely to change their minds. Please stop! --
1444:
2. Yes, Peters reached & informed people who were “ignorant” of the fact that there could be an equal-area map.
1280:
As for "repetitiveness", I've answered, & then many times re-answered the same endlessly-repeated objections.
1124:
homolosine projection, and sinusoidal projection all appeared commonly in atlases throughout most of that century.
899:"The controversy is about the projection. I think that means this article is the right place for it." Strebe (talk)
1549:
1544:
I haven't read this entire thing because it's very long, but I want to reiterate a key point about the policies:
1434:
I don't know why the Gall-Peters projection should be judged by Peters' success in impressing ignorant people.
542:
498:
1667:
1618:
1565:
810:
597:
and please don't start this again. If you can't give us reliable sources, then please drop this. At some point
336:
50:
1729:
1702:
1491:
1383:
1299:
984:
918:
856:
793:
760:
709:
663:
628:
1721:
1714:
I've again, only in my own text, replaced "Gall-Orthographic" with "Peters Projection" & "Peters map".
1694:
1271:...long ago, moved on to use Knowledge (XXG) as a forum in blatant violation of Knowledge (XXG) policies.
1200:
5. As with a pseudocylindrical, latitude sameness or difference is obvious, due to the straight parallels.
1173:
to include them in an article about the projection. So forget that & move on. It's no longer relevant.
848:
785:
301:
1254:
No, I clarify when I'm expressing a "musing" or subjective opinion or speculation...as opposed to a fact.
782:
the Knowledge (XXG) articles about all the other projecteions) ...& not the history of a scandal.
583:
638:
1698:
1512:
1026:
404:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
116:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1477:
GO isn’t a beauty-queen. It’s just the king of usefulness & practicality in an equal-area map.
536:
1018:
1584:
I still think it would make sense to transfer the bulk of the remaining text to the Arno Peters page
1518:
870:
The controversy is about the projection. I think that means this article is the right place for it.
231:
21:
1663:
1614:
1577:
1561:
806:
1785:
1640:
1530:
1406:
1325:
941:
827:
688:
557:
504:
1522:
1088:
546:
1086:, the IP editor's repetitive musing on these "advantages" is a violation of the policy against
1235:
I suggest that Strebe read WP:BLUE. Obvious facts don't need citation of a Reliable-Source.
1014:
1553:
1545:
723:
598:
329:
1789:
1770:
1749:
1745:
1733:
1671:
1644:
1622:
1595:
1591:
1569:
1534:
1495:
1410:
1387:
1329:
1303:
1105:
1101:
1013:: False. The world had long had, and long commonly used diverse equal-area projections. The
988:
945:
922:
894:
890:
879:
875:
860:
831:
814:
797:
764:
739:
735:
713:
692:
667:
650:
646:
632:
614:
610:
587:
561:
519:
500:
461:
100:
84:
63:
727:
641:. And accusing me of suppressing information is a personal attack. Again, please drop this.
602:
1203:
6. Longitude is easy & accurate to linearly interpolate, as with pseudocylindricals.
594:
384:
363:
1363:
the article until I have time to bring the question to Knowledge (XXG) administration?
173:
1461:
organizations, agencies & school-systems. That’s a major positive accomplishment.
1214:
The properties are given in the rest of the article that's not about the controversy.
1042:
The "controversy" says nothing whatsoever about Gall-Orthographic's actual properties.
567:...the relative popularity of different projections by some metric...Do you have any?
1798:
1781:
1636:
1526:
1402:
1321:
937:
823:
684:
553:
1061:
while the mention of blatantly-obvious advantages is forbidden by the editors here.
718:
It's not up to AnonMoos or any of the rest of the editors to find sources for you.
502:
1741:
1610:
1605:
1587:
1483:
An 18-wheeler shipping-truck isn’t as beautiful as a Jag, but it’s more useful.
1097:
886:
871:
731:
642:
606:
401:
1338:
Peters most definitely DID NOT "introduce the world to equal-area projections"
1217:
Well...not really :-) Maybe some properties are given. See directly below:
218:. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see:
194:
Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places
90:
1586:
Thanks. I haven’t been able to go over your edits yet, but will try to soon.
1239:
problem with some WP editors. I suggest that this article has that problem.
113:
1221:
requirement for anything that anyone challenges as false or insignificant.
967:
propagating his mis-statements anymore. Certainly correct them if they do.
1245:
Nonsense. I wasn't "musing". I was stating obvious facts. Read WP:BLUE.
1431:
That was no small or inconsequential accomplishment by Peters’ work.
1232:
refused to answer. No one challenged the accuracy of the statement.
1034:& I doubt that anyone is propagating his mis-statements anymore.
1359:...(Gall-Peters) which is actually not too great for world maps...
1186:
1. Conformality along two parallels instead of only at two points
1029:
all appeared commonly in atlases throughout most of that century.
838:"some mention of controversy is inherent to the subject matter."
397:
1613:. Just a thought, though; I think it's acceptable either way.
1315:"introduce the world to equal-area projections"!!! Rather, he
1189:
2. Equal, identical & uniform treatment of all longitudes.
505:
455:
15:
1556:
doesn't apply here, for the reasons I explained in January.
1257:, which they present in authoritative and universal terms.
748:
Don't repeat mis-statements that have already been answered.
1165:
map-projection...because Arno Peters popularized it.
1080:
Is that deletion permissible at an article talk-page?
396:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
309:
Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
112:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1825:
Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles in Geography
1457:…otherwise it wouldn’t be “informing”, would it.
1780:, you need to take that up with the mural artist.
1369:Then tell about that at the Arno Peters article.
1071:for anything that anyone challenges as false or
545:. Keep it short and simple. There's no point in
323:Knowledge (XXG) requested photographs of places
1366:unnecessarily created yet further antagonism.
267:Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
513:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
1480:( …among the ones that have been in print.)
1183:Well, I'll try to repeat some of them here:
1815:Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in Geography
576:Schools' choices of equal-area world-maps.
1719:
1044:That's because the Controversy section is
846:
783:
358:
181:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
159:
58:
1763:2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F498:53E6:B1F7:FFCC
1519:repetitive and continuing walls of text
1441:Don’t answer things that I didn’t say.
777:Proposed removal of controversy section
360:
253:Geographic related deletion discussions
60:
19:
1810:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles
1277:In reply to the passage quoted below:
1011:who introduced the world to equal-area
637:And that is why what you are doing is
523:when more than 3 sections are present.
224:Unknown-importance geography articles
126:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Geography
7:
1582:Can you explain your thinking here:
390:This article is within the scope of
281:Geography articles needing infoboxes
239:Geography articles needing attention
210:Tag related article talk pages with
106:This article is within the scope of
1830:B-Class vital articles in Geography
1474:GO won’t win any beauty-contests.
573:...by individuals & schools.
49:It is of interest to the following
1048:. The properties are given in the
14:
1840:Mid-importance geography articles
517:may be automatically archived by
163:WikiProject Geography To-do list:
1778:File:Peters projection mural.jpg
1089:using Knowledge (XXG) as a forum
570:Equal-area world-map purchases.
460:
414:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Maps
383:
362:
198:Missing articles about Locations
172:
93:
83:
62:
29:
20:
434:This article has been rated as
146:This article has been rated as
1845:WikiProject Geography articles
1820:B-Class level-5 vital articles
541:, cut it out already with the
295:Knowledge (XXG) requested maps
129:Template:WikiProject Geography
1:
408:and see a list of open tasks.
220:Unassessed geography articles
120:and see a list of open tasks.
1855:Mid-importance Maps articles
1709:) 22:23, June 14, 2022 (UTC)
1375:A speculative supposition.
615:00:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
593:That is not a source. Read
588:23:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
562:21:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
1790:17:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
1771:15:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
1023:Goode homolosine projection
1871:
1835:B-Class geography articles
1672:18:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
1570:13:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
1535:20:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
1496:03:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
1411:01:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
1388:22:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
1330:18:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
1304:07:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
1106:23:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
989:22:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
946:09:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
923:04:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
895:02:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
880:04:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
861:04:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
832:02:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
815:01:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
798:01:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
765:04:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
740:03:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
714:03:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
693:01:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
668:03:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
651:19:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
633:17:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
440:project's importance scale
152:project's importance scale
1750:05:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
1734:03:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
1645:21:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
1623:20:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
1596:17:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
1353:mis-statements about it.
1054:not about the controversy
433:
417:Template:WikiProject Maps
378:
158:
145:
78:
57:
260:Geographical coordinates
1776:If you're referring to
1805:B-Class vital articles
1052:of the article that's
1850:B-Class Maps articles
1135:popularization work.
1046:about the controversy
1027:sinusoidal projection
214:WikiProject Geography
109:WikiProject Geography
43:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
36:level-5 vital article
1019:Mollweide projection
547:beating a dead horse
1517:, enough with your
1523:dead-horse beating
132:geography articles
45:content assessment
1736:
1724:comment added by
1697:comment added by
1065:lack of citations
1015:Werner projection
863:
851:comment added by
800:
788:comment added by
527:
526:
492:
491:
454:
453:
450:
449:
446:
445:
357:
356:
353:
352:
349:
348:
345:
344:
1862:
1710:
1581:
1550:WP:Verifiability
1516:
540:
522:
506:
478:
477:
464:
456:
422:
421:
418:
415:
412:
393:WikiProject Maps
387:
380:
379:
374:
366:
359:
246:Deletion sorting
217:
187:Article requests
176:
169:
168:
160:
134:
133:
130:
127:
124:
103:
101:Geography portal
98:
97:
96:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
1870:
1869:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1795:
1794:
1758:
1692:
1686:
1684:Arbitrary break
1664:Justin Kunimune
1615:Justin Kunimune
1575:
1562:Justin Kunimune
1510:
807:Justin Kunimune
779:
534:
532:
518:
507:
501:
469:
419:
416:
413:
410:
409:
372:
341:
337:Geography stubs
211:
131:
128:
125:
122:
121:
99:
94:
92:
72:
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
1868:
1866:
1858:
1857:
1852:
1847:
1842:
1837:
1832:
1827:
1822:
1817:
1812:
1807:
1797:
1796:
1793:
1792:
1757:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1712:
1685:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1599:
1598:
1578:Justinkunimune
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1503:
1499:
1455:
1454:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1391:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1093:
1076:
1067:, which are a
1057:
1038:
1030:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
976:
972:
971:disadvantages.
968:
964:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
928:
927:
926:
925:
911:
908:
904:
900:
897:
866:
836:
835:
834:
818:
817:
778:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
753:
749:
746:
702:
698:
679:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
656:
621:
565:
531:
530:Moving forward
528:
525:
524:
512:
509:
508:
503:
499:
497:
494:
493:
490:
489:
484:
471:
470:
465:
459:
452:
451:
448:
447:
444:
443:
436:Mid-importance
432:
426:
425:
423:
406:the discussion
388:
376:
375:
373:Mid‑importance
367:
355:
354:
351:
350:
347:
346:
343:
342:
340:
339:
325:
311:
297:
283:
269:
255:
241:
227:
200:
180:
178:
177:
165:
164:
156:
155:
148:Mid-importance
144:
138:
137:
135:
118:the discussion
105:
104:
88:
76:
75:
73:Mid‑importance
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1867:
1856:
1853:
1851:
1848:
1846:
1843:
1841:
1838:
1836:
1833:
1831:
1828:
1826:
1823:
1821:
1818:
1816:
1813:
1811:
1808:
1806:
1803:
1802:
1800:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1726:97.82.116.234
1723:
1715:
1711:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1699:97.82.116.234
1696:
1689:
1683:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1607:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1579:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1557:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1514:
1513:97.82.116.234
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1502:
1498:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1488:97.82.116.234
1484:
1481:
1478:
1475:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1462:
1458:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1448:
1445:
1442:
1439:
1435:
1432:
1429:
1425:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1390:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1380:97.82.116.234
1376:
1373:
1370:
1367:
1364:
1360:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1343:
1339:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1296:97.82.116.234
1291:
1288:
1285:
1281:
1278:
1275:
1272:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1258:
1255:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1243:
1240:
1236:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1222:
1218:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1201:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1187:
1184:
1181:
1177:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1120:Strebe says:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1074:
1073:insignificant
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
990:
986:
982:
981:97.82.116.234
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
947:
943:
939:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
924:
920:
916:
915:97.82.116.234
912:
909:
905:
901:
898:
896:
892:
888:
883:
882:
881:
877:
873:
869:
868:
867:
864:
862:
858:
854:
853:97.82.116.234
850:
847:-- Preceding
842:
839:
833:
829:
825:
820:
819:
816:
812:
808:
803:
802:
801:
799:
795:
791:
790:97.82.116.234
787:
784:-- Preceding
776:
766:
762:
758:
757:97.82.116.234
754:
750:
747:
743:
742:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
716:
715:
711:
707:
706:97.82.116.234
703:
699:
696:
695:
694:
690:
686:
682:
681:
680:
669:
665:
661:
660:97.82.116.234
657:
654:
653:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
635:
634:
630:
626:
625:97.82.116.234
622:
618:
617:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
591:
590:
589:
585:
581:
577:
574:
571:
568:
564:
563:
559:
555:
550:
548:
544:
543:walls of text
538:
529:
521:
516:
511:
510:
496:
495:
488:
485:
483:
480:
479:
476:
473:
472:
468:
463:
458:
457:
441:
437:
431:
428:
427:
424:
420:Maps articles
407:
403:
399:
395:
394:
389:
386:
382:
381:
377:
371:
368:
365:
361:
338:
334:
332:
331:
326:
324:
320:
318:
317:
312:
310:
306:
304:
303:
298:
296:
292:
290:
289:
284:
282:
278:
276:
275:
270:
268:
264:
262:
261:
256:
254:
250:
248:
247:
242:
240:
236:
234:
233:
228:
225:
221:
215:
209:
207:
206:
201:
199:
195:
191:
189:
188:
183:
182:
179:
175:
171:
170:
167:
166:
162:
161:
157:
153:
149:
143:
140:
139:
136:
119:
115:
111:
110:
102:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1759:
1720:— Preceding
1716:
1713:
1693:— Preceding
1690:
1687:
1583:
1558:
1543:
1500:
1485:
1482:
1479:
1476:
1473:
1469:
1466:
1463:
1459:
1456:
1449:
1446:
1443:
1440:
1436:
1433:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1365:
1361:
1358:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1344:
1340:
1337:
1316:
1312:
1292:
1289:
1286:
1282:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1256:
1253:
1250:
1247:
1244:
1241:
1237:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1223:
1219:
1216:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1033:
1010:
865:
843:
840:
837:
780:
719:
678:
639:WP:NOTAFORUM
580:96.39.179.76
578:
575:
572:
569:
566:
551:
537:96.39.179.76
533:
514:
466:
435:
391:
328:
327:
314:
313:
300:
299:
286:
285:
272:
271:
258:
257:
244:
243:
230:
229:
203:
202:
185:
184:
147:
107:
51:WikiProjects
34:
1611:Arno Peters
1606:Arno Peters
1317:POLITICIZED
1284:right now.
1069:requirement
963:advantages.
745:popularity.
520:ClueBot III
402:Cartography
1799:Categories
1756:continents
1127:Nonsense.
302:Notability
251:Listed at
1084:citations
752:distance.
487:Archive 2
482:Archive 1
123:Geography
114:geography
70:Geography
39:is rated
1782:AnonMoos
1722:unsigned
1707:contribs
1695:unsigned
1637:Macrakis
1527:Macrakis
1403:AnonMoos
1322:AnonMoos
1082:Without
975:article.
938:AnonMoos
849:unsigned
824:AnonMoos
786:unsigned
726:becomes
685:AnonMoos
620:article.
601:becomes
554:Macrakis
467:Archives
1554:WP:BLUE
1546:WP:BLUE
1313:DID NOT
903:itself.
724:WP:IDHT
599:WP:IDHT
515:90 days
438:on the
274:Infobox
232:Cleanup
150:on the
41:B-class
1742:Meters
1588:Strebe
1098:Strebe
1025:, and
887:Meters
872:Strebe
732:Meters
728:WP:CIR
643:Meters
607:Meters
603:WP:CIR
205:Assess
47:scale.
907:else.
701:that.
595:WP:RS
475:Index
330:Stubs
316:Photo
28:This
1786:talk
1767:talk
1746:talk
1730:talk
1703:talk
1668:talk
1641:talk
1619:talk
1592:talk
1566:talk
1531:talk
1521:and
1492:talk
1407:talk
1384:talk
1326:talk
1300:talk
1102:talk
1050:rest
985:talk
942:talk
919:talk
891:talk
876:talk
857:talk
828:talk
811:talk
794:talk
761:talk
736:talk
710:talk
689:talk
664:talk
647:talk
629:talk
611:talk
584:talk
558:talk
411:Maps
400:and
398:Maps
370:Maps
335:See
321:See
307:See
293:See
279:See
265:See
237:See
222:and
196:and
192:See
730:."
720:You
430:Mid
288:Map
142:Mid
1801::
1788:)
1769:)
1748:)
1732:)
1705:•
1670:)
1643:)
1621:)
1594:)
1568:)
1533:)
1494:)
1453:-D
1409:)
1386:)
1328:)
1302:)
1104:)
1078:o
1059:o
1040:o
1032:o
1021:,
1009:o
987:)
944:)
921:)
893:)
878:)
859:)
830:)
813:)
796:)
763:)
738:)
712:)
691:)
666:)
649:)
631:)
613:)
605:.
586:)
560:)
549:.
216:}}
212:{{
1784:(
1765:(
1744:(
1728:(
1701:(
1666:(
1639:(
1617:(
1590:(
1580::
1576:@
1564:(
1529:(
1515::
1511:@
1490:(
1405:(
1382:(
1324:(
1298:(
1100:(
1092:.
1075:.
1056:.
983:(
940:(
917:(
889:(
874:(
855:(
826:(
809:(
792:(
759:(
734:(
708:(
687:(
662:(
645:(
627:(
609:(
582:(
556:(
539::
535:@
442:.
333::
319::
305::
291::
277::
263::
249::
235::
226:.
208::
190::
154:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.