Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Cartography of Palestine (region)

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Cartography of Palestine (region)

(
)
Map by Pietro Vesconte, 1321.
Map by Pietro Vesconte, 1321.
  • ... that the first map of a definite country, other than copies of Roman geographer Ptolemy, was a map of Palestine (pictured)? Source: Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld (1889). Facsimile-atlas to the Early History of Cartography: With Reproductions of the Most Important Maps Printed in the XV and XVI Centuries. Kraus. pp. 51, 64.: "...the first non-Ptolemaic map of a definite country"

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 01:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Most of the comments especially some lengthy ones in each boxes have no sources. You need to add sources for each comment even something as simple as "Copy from 1298" either inline or as a separate notes column. See 1892 Legislative Session of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Also your bibliography from Moscrop 2000 down to Fischer 1940 are not used and are exhibiting the "Harv warning". The bibliography needs to be better organized in alphabetical order by authors. Also the caption of the first paragraph contains a lot of uncited information as well. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This fact, cited or not, seems rather unlikely. I mean, what about Strabo's Geographica? It maps a whole series of countries. And the Ancient Egyptians did sophisticated cadastral surveys, and we have a geological map they made in ~1150 BC; I can't imagine that no map of Egypt was ever made. I mean, there was a well-established tourist industry in Herodotus's day, and tourists who had come to see Egypt would presumably have liked to see where they had been. I haven't even started on the quite sophisticated maps often produced by non-literate cultures, which are also underrepresented by history of cartography. Even if, by defining terms really carefully, and ignoring all maps not still preserved, and being a bit Eurocentric, you were able to somehow argue this one, it's an uninformative sort of fact that needs such hard-to-imagine qualifications. The linked article also dramatically contradicts the hook, and its lede contradicts most of its content. HLHJ (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@HLHJ: thanks for this. I could resolve your first set of points by adding the word “known” or “surviving”, but I am quite taken by your second set of points. How about this version which may generate more clicks:
It’s worded ambiguously to keep it impactful, but the point is to refer to Ptolemy’s map. It could also be plural (maps) and refer more broadly to the first ten or so maps, given that, despite a few of the maps not using the word Palestine, all the earliest maps were created during the time of Syria Palestina, Palestina Prima and Jund Filastin (see also Timeline of the name "Palestine"). Onceinawhile (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Onceinawhile. Referring to the Ptolemaian map, or the first few maps, makes sense. I'm OK with hooks that have double meanings, and the hook would certainly hook attention. In the singular "map", ALT1 is not quite cited (something that explicitly said that X was the earliest known map, or the earliest known one of which we have copies), and in the plural, it isn't cited (and the Jerome map does not seem to say "Palestine").
On citability, I think Strabo did map that area earlier, and it seems unlikely that the Romans left no record of any map of the Roman province of Judea. You might make a "first" hook work here, but it's going to be difficult; and"some of the earliest known" or "some early" has less kick. If, once you've got all the information in this article cited, you aren't sure you can support this hook adequately, then I'll be happy read through it and discuss alternate hooks again.
Separately, I think that in order to use ALT1, the article would need a brief discussion of the history of various names for this region (possibly linked to the Timeline of the name "Palestine" you linked, and Timeline of the name "Judea", and perhaps Names of the Levant -- can't see one for "Isreal"), so that people would go away informed, and not determined to complain to someone (incidentally, should the article title use "Levant", given that the scope seems to be the geographic area, not the nomenclature? Do we have a policy on this?).
I don't think it would make sense to use the 1321 map in an accompanying illustration if the hook does not mention it (the mapmaker of the 1321 map also titles it "Terra Sancta", the Holy Land, and in his Latin caption, refers to both "Cesarea Palestine" and the sons of Isreal; he was working in Venice, so this isn't surprising). Of course, this illustration isn't necessary for your proposed ALT1 hook; you could change the picture, or figure the hook is hooky enough already and leave it out. HLHJ (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi @HLHJ: thanks for this. I’ll respond on your other points in due course, but on citability of Ptolemy I have: Nebenzahl, Kenneth (1986). Maps of the Holy Land: Images of Terra Sancta Through Two Millennia. Abbeville Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-89659-658-0. Cartography as we know it today begins with this spectacular map of the world at the time of Claudius Ptolemy. It sets the stage for the history of mapping the Holy Land... his work was to become the model for scientific cartography during the great revivals of mapmaking: the tenth-century Golden Age of Islam and the European Renaissance. The rediscovery of Ptolemy in the fifteenth century was particularly important for maps of the Holy Land; it ended the almost complete domination of mapmaking by Church dogma throughout the Middle Ages... Around AD 150 he produced his Geographia, the earliest known atlas of the world.
Your challenge re Strabo could be expanded to include many of the names in the list of Graeco-Roman geographers pre-Ptolemy, many if whom described the Palestine region in their writings. I would like to add a sentence on this in the article if I can find a source confirming that none of them made maps (or at least no maps that are known to us).
Onceinawhile (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Not in the least denying that Ptolemy was important. Eratosthenes might be a better counterexample than Strabo, he is known to have made maps (including all the world he knew) rather than just inspiring them, and he lived practically next door. HLHJ (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi @HLHJ: Ptolemy’s primary source, Marinus of Tyre, lived even closer than Erastothenes. And unfortunately none of Erastothenes’ maps survived, nor did any of the maps of the great Ancient Greek cartographers. See: Wilson, Nigel Guy (2006). "Cartography". Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece. Psychology Press. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-415-97334-2. As geographical knowledge improved, various writers recorded what they believed to be the spatial relationships of territories and peoples to each other, and it is from this information that many modern historical atlases present items such as the world according to Hecataeus or Herodotus or Eratosthenes: actual ancient versions of these maps do not survive (indeed, modern versions seem to originate in the 1883 volumes of Bunbury), although there do exist Byzantine versions of Ptolemy's maps. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi @HLHJ: are you ok with me proceeding on this basis? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not really OK with "earliest" or "earliest known". "Earliest surviving" might work if you can source it. "Cartography as we know it today begins with this spectacular map of the world at the time of Claudius Ptolemy. It sets the stage for the history of mapping the Holy Land" is not quite that; the phrasing is peacocky rather than factual, and does not make a falsifiable assertion. The article is still short on sourcing, and needs more context (I sometimes find the originals-and-copies history a bit hard to follow). On scope; the Palestine (region) wl article says "The boundaries of the region have changed throughout history", which is a bit lacking as operational definitions go. The scope does not seem to be limited to maps saying "Palestine" or a translation. The article seems to mention whenever a map says "Palestine" or a translation, but it is not mention when other terms are used; I'm not sure what this says about the scope. Clarification on terms would also be good: Palestine? Levant? Israel? Holy Land? What do these terms mean? Do they differ? Why was "Palestine" chosen for the article title? Obviously a full discussion would be out of place, but the article should chose an appropriate scope and define it. Some text on the cultural background of some of the mapping would also be good, and on the practical developments (why weren't the Napoleonic cartographers able to survey some areas, for instance? How did the Crusaders use maps? The Ottomans? How were maps used in religious scholarship?). Currently the article is a single-sentence defining the article topic, a list of maps (with some interesting details for some of them), and a short list of lists of maps.
Marinus is impressive, thanks for the link! HLHJ (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi @HLHJ: I have a few clarifications on the above while I work through it. I have added an explanation of the scope in the last two sentences in the lede, following the scope used at Cartography of Jerusalem, and have also added a column pointing out the regional names used in the maps. The article name is simply following the usage in the vast majority of maps (and written sources) during the period when these maps were made (c.150AD until c.1880AD). Does that answer your questions?
I agree with many of your other points, and intend to add them over time (I would like to get this to WP:FL). In respect of the WP:DYK nomination, please could you let me know which remaining changes you consider crucial for it to be eligible? Onceinawhile (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for the slow response, Onceinawhile, I didn't see that you'd posted here after posting below. I really did not intend to drift into reviewing this, but... KAVEBEAR mentioned sourcing; there is still unsourced content in the tables.
Neutrality is a very difficult one in an area where the name of the area is so politically contentious; here we also have to deal with historical usages ("the Levant" seems about the only modern politically-neutral name for this area, and it can historically encompass a much broader area). Logomachy is easy to laugh at, but that's human conflict. The scope is currently defined as "The cartography of the region of Palestine, also known as cartography of the Holy Land and cartography of the Land of Israel, is the creation, editing, processing and printing of maps of the region of Palestine from ancient times until the rise of modern surveying techniques" The repetition of "Palestine", sounds a bit odd, and could just as well link to, say, Holy Land (which article states "Traditionally, it [the term "Holy Land"] is synonymous both with the biblical Land of Israel and with the region of Palestine"), or Land of Israel, or Canaan, or Levant, or...
While most of the maps use variants on the term "Palestine", if anything, as a "Region name given" column interestingly but perhaps slightly pointedly points out, this is the only reason for preferring one term to another, and I'm honestly not sure if it's sufficient or not. Are there any Wikipedia precedents on this issue? I'd suggest something like "the region known variously as..." followed by a link in which all are wikilinked. There may be a more elegant neutral solution here; I have no experience dealing with this conflict point and welcome suggestions. "Modern" is defined by implication, as the latest map is 1880. After 1400 only notable maps are shown; some are wikilinked, but none are redlinked, for some reason). It also says "The article lists maps that progressed the cartography of region before the rise of modern surveying techniques, showing how mapmaking and surveying improved and helped outsiders to better understand the geography of the area. Imaginary maps and copies of existing maps are excluded.", which seems reasonable.
It seems that the article is in some ways more of a "List of pre-20th-century maps of the Levant" than "Cartography of Palestine", which I would expect to concentrate on the history of motivations and methods of mapping, surveying expeditions, and so on. The main part of the article is a quite interesting illustrated list, and I'd tend to think of it as a list article. The text is now long enough, if a bit wordy . I'm not sure that qualified-first is a promising direction for a hook; could you make some more hook suggestions? "For several centuries during the Middle Ages it [the Holy Land, according to the source] was the most prominent subject in all of cartography" needs globalizing, but material from that quote might be a good topic. HLHJ (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi @HLHJ:, thanks very much for taking the time to look at this again. I will try to address your comments one-by-one:
  • Sourcing in tables - I will go through and add one source per row
  • A neutral name - this question has been discussed ever since Wikipedia came into being, albeit the last few years have seen stability. With respect to other terms, it states at Palestine (region): “The region comprises most of the territory claimed for the biblical regions known as the Land of Israel, the Holy Land or Promised Land, and represents the southern portion of wider regional designations such as Canaan, Syria, ash-Sham, and the Levant”. The Israeli government has historically worked to discredit the term Palestine, and where the term “Israel” is impossible to apply they encourage the replacement of Palestine with “Holy Land” (the source you referred to above is a description of a collection which had been donated to the National Library of Israel). For most of the history of scholarly works on the subject of this article, Palestine was the only word used in the context of documenting the pre-modern maps of the region (see Tobler, Röhricht and Fischer, mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead). In terms of consistency within Wikipedia, it is not perfect, as we still have some duplication (see e.g. History of Palestine and History of Israel which cover the same topic), but we have broad consensus with articles which are related only to pre-1948 (when Israel came into being) such as Demographic history of Palestine (region) and Travelogues of Palestine. We don’t use other terms, except for pre-history articles, as they are equally “non-neutral”. So if we want to follow precedent within Wikipedia, we have a binary choice between Israel and Palestine in the title.
  • List - yes it is intended to be a list article (as is Cartography of Jerusalem), and over time it is intended that the Comments column fully incorporates the “history of motivations and methods of mapping” (again as does the Jerusalem article). The Cartography topics in wikipedia are not particularly consistent so far, but I am trying to inspire improvement.
  • Hook - I agree perhaps easier to go for a slightly less challenging hook. How about something like “the first list of maps of Palestine was published more than 150 years ago”?
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
If that's the consensus choice, then "Palestine" seems reasonable. I now see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists doesn't actually say you need "List" in the heading, and we don't have a prose article on the cartography of the region, and could split it off if we develop one. I've re-categorized the article class on the talk page as "list" accordingly. It does seem a bit silly to require a cite for the existence, author, and date of creation of a map we have an entire article about; this is all readily verifiable without an in-article citation. Unless someone objects, I think rows like "Van de Velde map" could be excused a lack of citations. Many rows also have decent cites through the image pages, but unfortunately I don't think we can expect that all readers will know that. Statements like "the first printed atlas in the Ottoman Empire" are the ones that really need cites. Your hook idea sounds good, Onceinawhile. HLHJ (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • For some reason, the original review failed to note that the article does not meet the minimum of 1500 prose characters required for such an article. Note that text in tables and lists do not count toward the prose total; this article has had 724 prose characters since its initial review on January 4, under half the minimum requirement of 1500 prose characters, and still has that number two months later. Onceinawhile, this is a show-stopper, even beyond the issues raised by HLHJ (for which I'm sorry you weren't pinged), which themselves seem to be significant. Unless you think you can address both of these issues (though perhaps they could be done together), it might be best to withdraw the nomination. Thanks, and sorry for the bad news. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Apologies for not pinging. I did not notice that either. Thanks to BlueMoonset for pointing that out. HLHJ (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks both. I will try to fix this soon. The "sister article" Cartography of Jerusalem is on the front page today. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I have now expanded the article to well over the required prose limit. Thank you for the prompt. I have also incorporated the sources which @HLHJ: and I discussed above, such that the proposed hook is now cited. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I will now work on the rest of the points raised by HLHJ. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Onceinawhile, HLHJ, where does this review now stand? There hasn't been a post here since late March, and the article hasn't been edited since March 17. The nomination is over three months old and the oldest one remaining; it's time to start wrapping this up. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    • BlueMoonset, there is still substantial uncited content it the article. We also do not have a cited hook, though Onceinawhile has some ideas for one. The comments are not quite in order; my last comment was the one above at 02:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC). I'm willing to re-review, though I may not be around much for the next few days. HLHJ (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both. I intend to find time to address HLHJ's comments this weekend. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@HLHJ: just a quick update – I have made good progress with completing the citations and intend to complete this tomorrow. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Source: Wood, Denis (16 April 2010). "Mapmaking, Counter-Mapping, and Map Art in the Mapping of Palestine". Rethinking the Power of Maps. Guilford Press. p. 232. ISBN 978-1-60623-708-3.: "In fact, the mapping of Palestine is a paradigm of the history of mapmaking; but since it’s also the object of counter-mapping and counter-counter-mapping, and an obsessive subject of map art, it makes a uniquely trenchant example around which to review the arguments of this book."
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I like the ALT2 hook, Onceinawhile. Let's go with that. You've done a lot of good work on the citing. There's still some uncited content: "Known as the "Anglo-Saxon" world map" "This 1436 manuscript by Peronet Lamy is the earliest known copy to survive complete; it was modelled after the lost "Codex Spirensis"." and "1537 map by Gerardus Mercator, three decades before he published his famous Mercator projection. This map was Mercator's first published map.", and "Ortelius's depiction of a biblical Palestine in his otherwise contemporary atlas has been criticized; Matari described it as an act "loaded with theological, eschatological, and, ultimately, para-colonial Restorationism".". There are some rows in the list which have no cites or main articles. I should belatedly say that the lede gives solid context, and has some character; it really adds to the article. HLHJ (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@HLHJ: thank you. I have worked through all the remaining cites, and added them in.
You are a hard task-master my friend, but your comments have been spot on and have added greatly to the article. The extra research over the last three months also brought out a number of additional maps that I have added in the table here and at commons. When I took on the task to create this article, I knew it would be much harder work than for Cartography of Jerusalem, and it certainly has been!
Onceinawhile (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Hurrah! It is done! Congratulations, Onceinawhile. You've put a lot of work into this, I hope you didn't let yourself in for too much more than you anticipated. Thank you for being patient with my quibbles and my ignorance. HLHJ (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Cartography_of_Palestine_(region)&oldid=1021143012"