Talk:Da Ming Hunyi Tu

Untitled
Interesting article. I wasn't aware of the existence of this map. It seems to be actually very similar to the Korean Kangnido world map. Could someone kindly make a link and a reference to the Kangnido map in the article? Thank you. PHG (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've started a "See Also" section. David Trochos (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Southern Africa
I've just responded to a citation request about the depiction of the Drakensberg range and the general outline of southern Africa by rewriting the section to be less specific. Most of the information available online about this map was published as a result of the South African Parliament's acquisition of a copy, and it was natural for the South African media to identify the mountains as the Drakensberg. However, I'd prefer to see a more neutral analysis if anybody can find one- strictly speaking, the mountains are actually depicted too far west for the Drakensberg. This may just be a copying error, linked to the reduced size of Africa as compared, for example, with the slightly later Kangnido, on which elements are not squashed together so much. David Trochos (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Some notes
--Nanshu (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That the Ming dynasty replaced the Yuan dynasty is Chinese POV. Mongols maintained their government even after 1368. And it is a matter of scholarly dispute when the Yuan Dynasty ended.
 * Zhu Siben's maps are not world maps. They only covers China and surrounding regions.
 * Chinese cartography website is just a digest of the article by Wang et al. I replaced refs.
 * Lindy Stiebel's article. The link is dead. I found it at the Internet Archive. I know nothing about the author, but I don't think this is a good source of this article. As its main theme isn't the DMHYT, it does not provide detailed information. And besides, it isn't credible as her description on the Kangnido is a total mess. I replaced refs.
 * A digital replica given to South Africa. I can hardly believe that this is so important that it is repeatedly mentioned in this article.
 * As I wrote at Talk:Kangnido, a team from Kyoto University is working on this map. I hope we can completely rewrite this article with new findings soon.

Comment moved from article
I moved the following comment on the article from the article to here. BabelStone (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(Sorry for this method and product of disgust, but most all that is written above relative to the Da Ming Hun Yi Tu is incorrect as the Ming map does not extend past the Bay of Bengal and in reality a map of the Buddhist world. Instead of being lazy and dogmatic, try reading the paper and review the images posted at "Chinese Maritime Expansion into the East and South China Seas" on the PhisicalPsience website and the only known correct interpretation of the Da Ming Hun Yi Tu posted on the internet. If not for the fact that I am a patriotic person with integrity, loyal to my country and not a sap for false guilt, that treason gaming search engines and those behind groups such as the disloyal Google, Bing and even Wikipedia hide, by having my site blocked or content and links removed, the material I share to include the only correct interpretation of Taosi Observatory in China. Taosi being where the Chinese, over 4,000 years ago most likely discovered that the Earth orbits the Sun and that Earth's orbit is non circular, which even the people at UNESCO having miss such discovery, will not come clean with having proposed a foolish gnomon site plan for the ancient observatory. Posted by Park McGraw, 23 May 2016)

1402 original?
I removed the following unsourced sentence added by :
 * The surviving copy of the map shows later revisions, and it is uncertain whether it is (or how closely it matches) the 1402 original.

I am not sure what the user means by "the 1402 original." --Nanshu (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like just covered up the earlier mistake. I guess s/he misunderstood that the Da Ming Hunyi Tu derived from the Kangnido. Now s/he removed the date 1402. I am not sure what s/he means by "the original."

A POV issue remains. The revised sentence happens to support Miya's (2006) hypothesis: what was created in 1389 is probably an unidentified source of the Da Ming Hunyi Tu and that the extant copy was created much later. I personally have no problem with the revised sentence as I support her theory. But Wang et al. (1994) jumped to the conclusion that dated the extant copy to 1389 or little later. --Nanshu (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nanshu, the revised sentence (and the original sentence, except that the 1402 date should not have been there) is intended to summarise the debate and therefore uncertainty in the field about whether the surviving version if the original. It is not intended to take a definitive stance either way, although personally like you I lean towards the Miya rather than the Wang view - which is why it says it is "uncertain" whether it is the original. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. --Nanshu (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Da Ming Hunyi Tu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070907180810/http://geog.hkbu.edu.hk/GEOG1150/Chinese/catalog/am31_map1.htm to http://geog.hkbu.edu.hk/GEOG1150/Chinese/Catalog/am31_map1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)