Editing Gall–Peters projection (section)

==Peters world map controversy==
[[File:Peters projection mural.jpg|thumb|Mural at a school depicting the Gall–Peters projection, with [[continent]]s coloured.]]
[[File:Peters projection, date line in Bering strait.svg|thumb|upright=1.3|The right and left borders of the Peters map are in the [[Bering Strait]], so all of Russia is displayed on the right side. 
{{legend|#00b400|Greenwich great circle}}
{{legend|#c80000|Bering Strait great circle (traversing [[Florence]] in Italy, see [[Florence meridian]])}}]]
The Gall–Peters projection initially passed unnoticed when presented by Gall in 1855. It achieved more widespread attention after Arno Peters reintroduced it in 1973. He promoted it as a superior alternative to the commonly used [[Mercator projection]], on the basis that the Mercator projection greatly distorts the relative sizes of regions on a map. In particular, he criticized that the Mercator projection causes wealthy Europe and North America to appear very large relative to poorer Africa and South America.<ref name="Monmonier"/>{{rp|155}} These arguments swayed many socially concerned groups to adopt the Gall–Peters projection, including the [[National Council of Churches]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ncccusa.org/news/01news13.html|title=Ncc Friendship Press' Peters Projection Map}}</ref> and the magazine ''[[New Internationalist]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=  http://www.newint.org/features/1983/05/01/flat/|title= The New Flat Earth|date=May 1983}}</ref>

His campaign was bolstered by the inaccurate claim that the Gall–Peters projection was the only "area-correct" map.<ref name="Bulletin">(1977) ''The Bulletin'' 25 (17) pp. 126–127. Bonn: Federal Republic of Germany Press and Information Office.</ref><ref name="Snyder165">Snyder, John P. (1993). ''Flattening the Earth: Two Thousand Years of Map Projections'' p. 165. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. {{ISBN|0-226-76746-9}}. (Summary of the Peters controversy.)</ref> In actuality, some of the oldest projections are equal-area (such as the [[sinusoidal projection]]), and hundreds have been described. He also inaccurately claimed that it possessed "absolute angle conformality", had "no extreme distortions of form", and was "totally distance-factual".<ref name="Bulletin"></ref> Peters framed his criticisms of the Mercator projection with criticisms of the broader cartographic community. In particular, Peters wrote in ''The New Cartography'',

{{Blockquote|By the authority of their profession [cartographers] have hindered its development. Since Mercator produced his global map over four hundred years ago for the age of Europeans world domination, cartographers have clung to it despite its having been long outdated by events. They have sought to render it topical by cosmetic corrections.…

The cartographic profession is, by its retention of old precepts based on the Eurocentric global concept, incapable of developing this egalitarian world map which alone can demonstrate the parity of all peoples of the earth.<ref name="Peters">Peters, Arno (1983). ''Die Neue Kartographie/The New Cartography'' (in German and English). Klagenfurt, Austria: Carinthia University; New York: Friendship Press.</ref>}}

As Peters's promotions gained popularity, the cartographic community reacted with hostility to his criticisms, as well as to the inaccuracy and lack of novelty of his claims.<ref name="Snyder157">Snyder, John P. (1993). ''Flattening the Earth: Two Thousand Years of Map Projections'' p. 157. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. {{ISBN|0-226-76746-9}}.</ref> They called attention to the long list of cartographers who, over the preceding century, had formally expressed frustration with publishers' overuse of the Mercator and advocated for alternatives.<ref name="Edwards">Edwards, Trystan (1953). ''A New Map of the World''. London: B.T. Batsford LTD.</ref><ref name="Hinks">Hinks, Arthur R. (1912). ''Map Projections'' p. 29. London: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref name="Steers">Steers, J.A. (1927). ''An Introduction to the Study of Map Projections'' 9th ed. p. 154. London: The University of London Press.</ref><ref name="Kellaway">Kellaway, G.P. (1946). ''Map Projections'' p. 37–38. London: Methuen & Co. LTD.</ref> In addition, several scholars criticized the particularly large distortions present in the Gall–Peters projection, and remarked on the irony of its undistorted presentation of the mid latitudes, including Peters's native Germany, at the expense of the low latitudes, which host more of the technologically underdeveloped nations.<ref name="Snyder CC">{{Cite journal | last1 = Snyder | first1 = J.P. | year = 1988 | title = Social Consciousness and World Maps |url=https://www.religion-online.org/article/social-consciousness-and-world-maps/ | journal = Christian Century | volume = 105 | pages = 190–192 }}</ref><ref name="Robinson1985">{{Cite journal | last1 = Robinson | first1 = Arthur H. | year = 1985 | title = Arno Peters and His New Cartography | journal = American Cartographer | volume = 12 | issue = 2| pages = 103–111 | doi=10.1559/152304085783915063}}</ref>

The increasing publicity of Peters's claims in 1986 motivated the American Cartographic Association (now [[Cartography and Geographic Information Society]]) to produce a series of booklets (including ''Which Map Is Best''<ref name="ACA1986"/>) designed to educate the public about map projections and distortion in maps. In 1989 and 1990, after some internal debate, seven North American geographic organizations adopted a resolution rejecting all rectangular world maps, a category that includes both the Mercator and the Gall–Peters projections,<ref name="Robinson1990">{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1111/j.0033-0124.1990.00101.x | last1 = Robinson | first1 = Arthur | year = 1990 | title = Rectangular World Maps—No! | journal = Professional Geographer | volume = 42 | issue = 1| pages = 101–104 }}</ref><ref name="AmericanCartographer">''American Cartographer''. 1989. 16(3): 222–223.</ref> though [[NACIS|the North American Cartographic Information Society]] notably declined to endorse it.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wood |first1=Denis |author-link1=Denis Wood |year=2003 |title=Cartography is Dead (Thank God!)|journal=Cartographic Perspectives |issue=45 |pages=4–7 |doi=10.14714/CP45.497 |quote=Nearly the entire profession endorsed this idiotic resolution…(but not NACIS)|doi-access=free }}</ref>

The two camps never made any real attempts toward reconciliation. The Peters camp largely ignored the protests of the cartographers, and did not acknowledge Gall's prior work<ref name="Snyder165" /> until the controversy had largely run its course, late in Peters's life. While he likely devised the projection independently, his unscholarly conduct and refusal to engage the cartographic community undoubtedly contributed to the polarization and impasse.<ref name="Crampton"/>

In the ensuing decades, [[John Brian Harley|J. Brian Harley]] credited the Peters phenomenon with demonstrating the social implications of map projections.<ref name="Harley">{{Cite journal | last1 = Harley | first1 = J.B. | year = 1991 | title = Can There Be a Cartographic Ethics? | journal = Cartographic Perspectives | volume = 10 | issue = 10| pages = 9–16 | doi = 10.14714/CP10.1053 }}</ref>