Talk:Piri Reis

Good catch on the "other hand" thing, Andre. --Ed Poor

---

Hapgood

On Hapgood's page it describes him as an academian, does anyone have any issue with me changing it that that here?Halbared (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"academian" doesn't have much meaning, but is sometimes used to disguise pseudo-scholarship. not sure it's a good idea. kwami (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Occult

According to a TV program I saw:

• the map displays the Andes before their discovery.
• The island of Marajo in the mouth of Amazon river doesn't appear. An old map?
• Some text says that Columbus discovered the land in the year x Anno Hegira. That would be 148x.

-- Error 00:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Corrected statement that this was the first map to show America to first Turkish map to show America. Many maps, both manuscript and printed, were made in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Poland, etc., between 1492 and 1513 that depicted America.

---

Whoever keeps adding the reference to Hapgoods as a Pseudo-scholar should know I will remove it every time I check this page, (which is everyday) legitamate criticism is one thing, but don't resort to name calling and character assasination because you don't agree with his theories. Besides, your refutation of his work was poor, really a pseudo-academic performance if you ask me, probably written by a pseudo-intellectual. Sincerely, Mad Monkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.112.85 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you any Grey Poupon, or perhaps Aspergers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.122 (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone added an image of the map with the claim that it shows perfectly the coast of Antarctica. This is nonsense as it is clearly an extension of the coast of South America (if it isn't, why is the bottom half of South America missing?). I have removed that claim. I suggest that person read some of the links (especially the debunking one I added some time back). --Infradig (andrew) 02:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

The map is not centered on Cairo as claimed. A quote from Soucek : Soucek (1992:269) has reconstructed where the center of the map would have been: “By superimposing the existing fragment of the 1502 Cantino planisphere, it is possible to make a provisional reconstruction of the area covered by the remaining portion of Piri Re’is whole map. p. 270 “The size and extent of the whole chart shown there (14.6) have been tentatively extrapolated from the five compass circles on the fragment. The center of the circle on which these wind roses lie can be plotted roughly in the Sahara Desert, at the approximate latitude of the Tropic of Cancer.”

• S. Soucek. 1992. “Islamic Charting in the Mediterranean,” In J.B. Harley and D. Woodward, eds. Cartography in the Traditional Islamic and South Asian Societies. Vol. 2, book 1, 263-272. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Itzcoatl 07:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Competing Wikipedia Entry

In case you aren't aware, there is a competing entry of sorts overlapping with this one at Piri Reis Map. Ideally, there should be discrete entries for Piri Reis the person and the Piri Reis map. My suggestion is that either 1) this page only include discussion of Piri Reis himself and not the map, or 2) there be only one page, entitled Piri Reis Map, that discusses both the person and the map. Comments? --Varenius 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Piri Reis map article is about a single map. This article describes some of his other work. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Found america before you

Why are you telling that the map isn't the best of his time and only be made so good by satelite photo's. Isnt it to hard that A TURK better was in another rhing again than your kind. I now it's hard to accept but he found america before you and bring it on map. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.224.33 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Read more of the linked articles. Reis' maps were based upon other maps, including ones from Spain and Portugal involving someone named Columbo/Columbus. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get in the middle of an ethnocentric fight here, I know both the Europeans and the Turks have much to be proud of in their histories. In the 1500's I believe Islam was a really progressive religion. But I digress, It seems that the Piri Reis map was composed from earlier source maps, probably origionally taken from the Library of Alexandria, and was a remant of an earlier seafaring civilization that was almost completly wiped out during the great flood (of which there is a record of in every civilization.) The great pyramids and the monuments in Central and South America were both probably both constructed by this advanced civilization, rather than the Incans, Mayas, and Aztecs, who even themselves contribute the building of the Pyramids to Quetzacotl and company, bearded "gods" who came over the seas from the West in ships.

Is it really that much of a stretch for the continents of South America and Antarctica to have been connected? Maybe the great flood occured because the earth's poles shifted, as they do from time to time (i.e. Alaska has tropical animals skeletons on it that died en masse, and New Zealand had no animal life besides for birds (meaning it probably was under one of the poles.))

Maybe the poles shifted and this caused the great floods, nearly wiping out an advanced sea-faring civilization (Atlantis? or whatever you want to call it) of whom few survived.

Before you disregard this theory out of hand, think about the evidence to support it, and think of other thinkers who were derided and prosecuted in the past for giving forth ideas contrary to the status quo, who turned out to be right, like that fellow, Galileo was it who claimed the earth rotated around the sun.

Even if this is not in sync with one's religion, it is not a refutation of your religion, there is room for both belief and history. We can both believe in religion (though I choose not to)and examine history with an open mind.

Thank you for the consideration

MadMonkey1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmonkey1 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Beheaded?

At 90? Just incredible... never say no to the Sultan I guess, and he should have known better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.66.196 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dont talk without knowing anything. Because he left his navy during a war with Portugals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.207.210 (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Piri Reis was not a Christian

Piri Reis was not a Christian. He is from the same family as the famous Kemal Reis, who was also his uncle.

Kemal Reis is from a family of central Anatolia, Karaman. Kemal Reis' family was Turkish Muslim.

Piri Reis father name is Hadji Mehmed and that is not a Christian name either.

There is no source at all that he was a Christian and later converted to Islam.

The source that is given: [Feudal society and its culture, Viktor Rutenburg, Progress Publishers, 1988, ISBN 9785010005283, p.176] is unreliable and the only source who claims that.

So I am deleting this because it is propoganda that tries to claim every famous Turk as a Christian or Greek by origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I already explained, stop being so racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there is source, the one you keep removing and then crying "there is no source" and "stop being racist". Racist is the person who insist in racially clean nations, especially his. And both four authors of the source are serious scientists with many studies in their field and no one is greek as to accuse them of being "racists". Is not to you to decide what source is or isn't "reliable".--79.166.157.163 (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

it appears you aren't well versed in this subject, so you keep adding dubious sources. I let it stay as it is since you are a fellow christian. 80.186.117.131 (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not.--79.166.157.163 (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Explaining why Piri Reis was not by origin Christian or Greek.

It does not matter to me if he was converted christian or greek, what matters me to me is the REALITY. You ( 79.166.157.163 ) claim him to be christian origin and possibly greek because of ONE (1) source:

But I can explain why that source is unreliable, please read this.

• 1- The most reliable source is this:

On his own map, (the famous of map of America in 1513), Piri Reis wrote this: This map was drawn by Piri Ibn Haji Mehmed, known as the nephew of Kemal Reis, in Gallipoli, in the month of muharrem of the year 919.

This is important: He writes his own name, his fathers name and that he was the nephew of Kemal Reis

• 2- In the Ottoman Empire, people who converted to Islam were called "son/daughter of Abdullah" That means in Arabic:

Servant of Allah, almost never the christian or ethnic origin name of the father was written and instead Abdullah was used.

Piri Reis writes his fathers name as Ibn Haji Mehmed that means: son of Haji Mehmed.( Not son of Abdullah, which he would probably used, if his father was a Christian)

Hajji is a muslim title given to people who have made the pilgrimage to Mecca and Mehmed is a version of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, this is clearly 100% a muslim name so his father was a muslim who had made the pilgrimage to Mecca. (And the chance that the son of a Muslim, was a Christian in that time, was 0%)

• He also writes that he is the nephew of Kemal Reis. So his father was a brother of Kemal Reis. Who is Kemal Reis??

Kemal Reis was born in Gallipoli on the Aegean coast of Turkey around 1451. His full name was Ahmed Kemaleddin and his father was a Turk named Ali from the city of Karaman in central Anatolia. He became known in Europe, particularly in Italy and Spain, with names like Camali and Camalicchio.

So his father was a Muslim Turk and his uncle was a Muslim Turk.

• You are the only one in the entire Internet claiming he was from Christian or Greek origin.

• Your claim is 100% not reliable, I explained it.

How can he be of Christian origin?

When he himself writes that his father is a muslim who made the pilgrimage to Mecca, his uncle is a famous muslim pirate and he himself is muslim.

After all this information. Dont you understand how ridiculous it is to claim: he was by origin christian, possibly Greek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not personalize the issue. It's not something between me and you. I am not "claiming" something, and unlike you, I have not a personal opinion about. I don't want to be dragged into an OR (original research) conflict here because this is not allowed in WP and because I really don't have the time. What I did is to participate in editing an article by referencing a sentence from a book that happens to be in front of me. I don't know how many other books have been written about him until know, and which one is the "best", but I can assure you that the authors are very serious and not a kind of nationalists or racists etc. The things you say seem OK with me, but I am not in a position to confirm them (as I am not in a position to deny them). I just don't know, and is not my business to know. That's why I am turning to the specialists about it which is also the standard procedure here. From your somewhat annoyed answer I understand you must be Turk, if so I want to ensure you that I don't have the slightest anti-Turkish sentiment and from what I have seen the Turk editors are among the most logical and low tone editors I have "met" in WP. So please don't make aggressive characterizations ("ridiculous" etc.) against me since I am not quoting myself, only a by definition neutral source, being written by a group of scientists who have written many other studies and from what I have seen until now (and I believe I am not wrong), nobody had called their work ridiculous or racist.--79.166.157.163 (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)