Talk:Gall–Peters projection

Moving forward
, cut it out already with the walls of text. Keep it short and simple. There's no point in beating a dead horse.

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? --Macrakis (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

[quote] ...the relative popularity of different projections by some metric...Do you have any? [/quote]

Equal-area world-map purchases.

...by individuals & schools.

Schools' choices of equal-area world-maps.

96.39.179.76 (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not a source. Read WP:RS and please don't start this again. If you can't give us reliable sources, then please drop this. At some point WP:IDHT becomes WP:CIR. Meters (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 article.
 * I only mentioned GP's popularity as part of mentioning to you that you haven't been very successful in suppressing it. 97.82.116.234 (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And that is why what you are doing is WP:NOTAFORUM. And accusing me of suppressing information is a personal attack. Again, please drop this.Meters (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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. 97.82.116.234 (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * 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 that.
 * 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. 97.82.116.234 (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not up to AnonMoos or any of the rest of the editors to find sources for you. You 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 WP:IDHT becomes WP:CIR." Meters (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 popularity.
 * Don't repeat mis-statements that have already been answered.
 * 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 distance.
 * But people here have been telling me that I can't say those obvious things in the article without citing a "reliable source" :-D 97.82.116.234 (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed removal of controversy section
I suggest that this article, consisting mostly of scandal-gossip & oppositional POV, be moved to the Arno Peters Wikipedia article, & that a separate, objective Gall-Orthographic article be written...about the projection itself, its properties, advantages & disadvantages. (...like the Wikipedia articles about all the other projecteions)   ...& not the history of a scandal. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.116.234 (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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 this projection, since the Arno Peters controversy is the reason it is notable today, but it doesn't have to be so long. Justin Kunimune (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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. AnonMoos (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

-- "some mention of controversy is inherent to the subject matter."

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.

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 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. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.116.234 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The controversy is about the projection. I think that means this article is the right place for it. Strebe (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 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. Meters (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "The controversy is about the projection. I think that means this article is the right place for it." Strebe (talk)
 * 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 itself.
 * 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 else.
 * Yes, Mr. Peters said incorrect things. Get over it. That's about Peters. It's got nothing to do with Gall-Orthographic itself.
 * 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. 97.82.116.234 (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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 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... AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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 advantages.
 * 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 propagating his mis-statements anymore. Certainly correct them if they do.
 * 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 & disadvantages.
 * 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 article.
 * 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 Meters deleted it. ...deleted mention of proposed improvement to the article. Is that deletion permissible at an article talk-page? 97.82.116.234 (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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 homolosine projection, and sinusoidal projection all appeared commonly in atlases throughout most of that century.
 * 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 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.
 * o The "controversy" says nothing whatsoever about Gall-Orthographic's actual properties. That's because the Controversy section is about the controversy. The properties are given in the rest of the article that's not about the controversy.
 * 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 requirement for anything that anyone challenges as false or insignificant.
 * o Is that deletion permissible at an article talk-page? Without citations, the IP editor's repetitive musing on these "advantages" is a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia as a forum.
 * 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 Mapthematics Map Projection Forums for many years after that, and, having worn out their welcome in those venues long ago, moved on to use Wikipedia as a forum in blatant violation of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia articles; or (b) Create their own forum and attract a following to promote their views there. Strebe (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Strebe says: [quote] 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 homolosine projection, and sinusoidal projection all appeared commonly in atlases throughout most of that century. [/quote] Nonsense. 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. 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' popularization work. 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 heard of equal-area maps, and the world was ripe for someone to (re)introduce it to them. That was done by Arno Peters. [quote] 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 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. [/quote] 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 "Gall-Peters" maps to the Boston school system. If so, then they were presented,offered & sold without Peters' false-claims. Can I (or Strebe) speak for every person involved in the Boston school system? ...every administrator, every instructor, every student? Of course not. 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 equal-area map, & that Gall-Orthographic does not have accurate shapes & distances. Those were just things that Peters & his early followers used to say. 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. [quote] o The "controversy" says nothing whatsoever about Gall-Orthographic's actual properties. That's because the Controversy section is about the controversy. [/quote] 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 map-projection...because Arno Peters popularized it. 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. 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 to include them in an article about the projection. So forget that & move on. It's no longer relevant. 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 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. Well, I'll try to repeat some of them here: 1. Conformality along two parallels instead of only at two points 2. Equal, identical & uniform treatment of all longitudes. 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. 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. 5. As with a pseudocylindrical, latitude sameness or difference is obvious, due to the straight parallels. 6. Longitude is easy & accurate to linearly interpolate, as with pseudocylindricals. 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. 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. [quote] The properties are given in the rest of the article that's not about the controversy. [/quote] Well...not really :-)    Maybe some properties are given. See directly below: [quote] 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 requirement for anything that anyone challenges as false or insignificant. [/quote] 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 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. 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 refused to answer. No one challenged the accuracy of the statement. I suggest that Strebe read WP:BLUE. Obvious facts don't need citation of a Reliable-Source. 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 problem with some WP editors. I suggest that this article has that problem. [quote] o Is that deletion permissible at an article talk-page? Without citations, the IP editor's repetitive musing on these "advantages"... [/quote] Nonsense. I wasn't "musing". I was stating obvious facts. Read WP:BLUE. 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. [quote] This IP editor has a long history of using, and abusing [Strebe's unsupported subjective opinion], whatever forums they can find to promote their ever-changing musings about map projections [/quote] No, I clarify when I'm expressing a "musing" or subjective opinion or speculation...as opposed to a fact. [quote] , which they present in authoritative and universal terms. [/quote] 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 [quote] 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... [/quote] 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 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. [quote] ...long ago, moved on to use Wikipedia as a forum in blatant violation of Wikipedia policies. [/quote] 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. In reply to the passage quoted below: As for "repetitiveness", I've answered, & then many times re-answered the same endlessly-repeated objections. 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 right now. 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. "...should not apply to them." Yes, the requirement for citation of Reliable-Sources doesn't apply to obvious facts. Read WP:BLUE. [quote] 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 Wikipedia articles; or (b) Create their own forum and attract a following to promote their views there. Strebe (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC) [/quote] 97.82.116.234 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I have little interest in continuing this discussion in general, but one of Anonymous IP's claims is very wrong -- Peters most definitely DID NOT "introduce the world to equal-area projections"!!! Rather, he POLITICIZED 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 -- 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 Wikipedia article...  AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

-- [quote] Peters most definitely DID NOT "introduce the world to equal-area projections" [/quote] 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. (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.) 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. 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' mis-statements about it. Yes, Arno wasn't a cartographer. We get that, & it's irrelevant to the projection itself. Arno wasn't even the projection's introducer. [quote] ...(Gall-Peters) which is actually not too great for world maps... [/quote] 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 the article until I have time to bring the question to Wikipedia administration? [quote] [Peters' mis-statements] unnecessarily created yet further antagonism. [/quote] Then tell about that at the Arno Peters article. [quote] Without the controversy or conflict, Gall-Peters would be a dusty semi-forgotten entry in Victorian archives which probably wouldn't deserve a separate Wikipedia article... AnonMoos [/quote] A speculative supposition. 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. 97.82.116.234 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC) --


 * 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 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... AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

- [quote] 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! [/quote] 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 the result that many progressive, religious, & U.N. organizations & agencies, & school-systems adopted an equal-area projection. That was no small or inconsequential accomplishment by Peters’ work. [quote] I don't know why the Gall-Peters projection should be judged by Peters' success in impressing ignorant people. [/quote] 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. Don’t answer things that I didn’t say. 2. Yes, Peters reached & informed people who were “ignorant” of the fact that there could be an equal-area map. The whole point of teaching is that you’re informing someone who was previously “ignorant” of what you’re informing them about.
 * -D

…otherwise it wouldn’t be “informing”, would it. 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 organizations, agencies & school-systems. That’s a major positive accomplishment. [quote] 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). [/quote] :-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. 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. GO won’t win any beauty-contests. GO isn’t a beauty-queen. It’s just the king of usefulness & practicality in an equal-area map. ( …among the ones that have been in print.) An 18-wheeler shipping-truck isn’t as beautiful as a Jag, but it’s more useful. …&, 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. 97.82.116.234 (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

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. -
 * , enough with your repetitive and continuing walls of text and dead-horse beating. If others aren't convinced by your arguments yet, further posts are unlikely to change their minds. Please stop! --Macrakis (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read this entire thing because it's very long, but I want to reiterate a key point about the policies: WP:BLUE 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 WP:Verifiability, which states "All material in Wikipedia 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, WP:BLUE doesn't apply here, for the reasons I explained in January.

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. Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you explain your thinking here: I still think it would make sense to transfer the bulk of the remaining text to the Arno Peters page Thanks. I haven’t been able to go over your edits yet, but will try to soon. Strebe (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There should be a full description of this controversy somewhere on Wikipedia, but I think it belongs more on the Arno Peters 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 Arno Peters.  Just a thought, though; I think it's acceptable either way. Justin Kunimune (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The controversy is about this projection, regardless of Peters' role in creating the controversy. The controversy should be discussed here. --Macrakis (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 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. Justin Kunimune (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
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)
 * 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)

continents
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) 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F498:53E6:B1F7:FFCC (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)