Talk:Cartography of Palestine

DYK

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)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

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"

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Abraham Goos

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - n
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: 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:

• ALT1 ... that the earliest known map of Israel is actually of Palestine?

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)

• ALT2 ... that the mapping of Palestine has been described as "obsessive"?

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)

Other key 19th century maps to choose from

• William F. Lynch's map of the Jordan Valley (1849)

Found at File:Map of the River Jordan and Dead Sea by W. F. Lynch.png. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Now in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Richard Kiepert's map (1856), showing places visited by E. Robinson and others (north and south sheets)

 Now in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Charles William Meredith van de Velde's maps (1858–1862), based on his own surveys and those of others (including the 1841 royal engineers). Probably the most detailed and accurate before PEF.

Oncenawhile, I uploaded a much better resolution copy of the 1858 map. I also have an edition on 8 separate sheets. I can send you maps if you ask by email. Zero^talk 00:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Now in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Mieulet and Derren's map "Levés en Galilé" (1870). This is a remarkable measured map of the western Galilee, as accurate as the PEF but also featuring contours.

Oncenawhile See File:MieuletDerrienMap-Gallica.jpg. I emailed you an article about it. Zero^talk 01:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Authors: Mieulet, Jean-Joseph (1830-1897) and Derrien, Isidore (1839-1904). Published by Dépôt de la guerre (Paris).

 Now in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Gottlieb Schumacher's maps, various dates

I have all of these. I didn't check Commons. Zero^talk 13:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Found it.

This 1841 map is historically important, but I cannot find it on the www anywhere. Can you? Zero^talk 04:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Good question. It's not in here [1] like the other maps by those surveyors. Nor does it appear to be in the Laor collection. Hmm. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Tobler [2] had this to say about it: "Die karte wurde in England für das auswärtige departement gestochen, kam aber nicht in den buchhandel und doch in die Hände der geographen. S. van de Velde's Mem. 5." which i read as saying it was never published. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Goren: "Nineteen sheets of the original maps are to be found in the British Archives (PRO) in London. They do not include the finished three-sheet map, as well as other products of the survey, such as Robe's sketch of the sources of the Jordan, which were published by Ritter and by Robinson in their periodicals. Various maps of Acre, as well as those of Jaffa and Gaza, were published in 1843 by Alderson in his detailed 'Notes on Acre and Some Coast Defences of Syria', a highly illuminating and important, yet neglected, source. One of the sketches shows Symond's triangulations, which have been discussed, as the first hypsometric measurement of the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea, reaching a relatively accurate result for the latter, but a very erroneous measurement for the Sea of Galilee. In addition, it was not surprising to find this original sketch in the collections of August Petermann in Perthes' Geographical Institute and publishing house in Gotha, as well."
• van de Velds: "The learned Professor Ritter has expressed his regret, that this survey was never laid before the public. His desire, that it soon might be done, has partly been fulfilled. Major R. Rochfort Scott, Royal Staff-Corps, has constructed from the partial surveys of different Engineer-Officers a map in three sheets under the following title: "Map of Syria, constructed from the surveys and sketches of the undermentioned officers in that country in 1840 1841, by Major R. Rochfort Scott, R. Staff-Corps, under whose general direction the work was undertaken, Majors F. H. Robe, 87th Fusileers and R. Wilbraham, 7th Fusileers, and Lieut. J. F. A. Symonda R. Engineers". This Map has been engraved for the Foreign Department by the care of Mr. Arrowsmith. It is not in the trade, but has nevertheless found its way to the Students of the Geography of Palestine; and one of the three sheets, the middle one, has been copied and inserted in Colonel Churchill's "Mount Lebanon, a ten years' residence from 1842 — 52, describing the manners, customs, &c.; historical records of the mountain tribes, from personal intercourse with their chiefs &c. 3 vols R. 8*". London 1853". The map was kindly communicated to me when in a yet unfinished state in 1852 by order of the Right Honourable the Earl of Malmesbury, then Secretary of State for the Department of Foreign affairs, and afterwards when it was completed, by order of his successor the Right Honourable the Earl of Clarendon"

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I have found it (a low res version). It is on p.31 of the paper you sent to me about 10 days ago: [3]. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I have uploaded it (see right). This is from a poor quality scan of Jones's paper. Any chance you have access to a better quality pdf of her paper? Onceinawhile (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

My library has this volume of the journal on paper. I should be able to access it next week. Zero^talk 00:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I visited this journal in January but I wasn't able to get a scan better than this image. Zero^talk 14:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Jacotin's map

To editor Oncenawhile:, the map of Jacotin was surveyed in 1799, but (according to Y. Karmon, [4]) not drawn until 1818. So what is the correct date by which to present it? Zero^talk 00:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Zero0000: I have been going by Nebenzahl's methodology - using the date that the map was first created - i.e. what point in time does its image represent - rather than when it was published. The early maps are the best example here (the extant copies are often hundreds of years after the original drawing, but we use the original date). Onceinawhile (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: in that case it should be 1799, not 1800. I have multiple sources for that; the one above, this article of Kallner (which appears as Kellner in the TOC), the book "Survey of Palestine" by Gavish (p7), etc. Zero^talk 04:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have changed it. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Title

Why not move this to plain Cartography of Palestine?

Onceinawhile, you may be interested in John R. Bartlett, Mapping Jordan Through Two Millennia (Routledge, 2008), if you aren't already familiar with it. I don't have it, but it is available for preview on Google. –Srnec (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The intention is to follow the definition we have at Palestine (region), with Demographic history of Palestine (region) following it. Now I look at it, I think they might be the only articles like that – we have Travelogues of Palestine and History of Palestine for the region without the brackets (see Template:Palestine (historic region) topics). I am open minded. Happy to move if you or others feel strongly. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think "Cartography of Palestine" would be better but I don't feel strongly about it. Zero^talk 08:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: on this basis I am happy for it to be moved. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

PEF Survey of Western Palestine

The only full map I can see is this composite from David Rumsey, which appears to be a stitch of the 26 plates. Is anyone aware of an “official” full size map of the Survey of Western Palestine? Onceinawhile (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

See here on Commons. Zero^talk 02:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I have added six more maps to the category, all showing the full composite. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Reddit

An interesting thread on Reddit relevant to the topic of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Zionist propoganda and delegitimizing Palestinian peoples

This article gives me a sense that it attempts to refer to Palestine as mainly a geographical term, disregarding the core indigenous population of the Palestinians that have been continuously living on the land since time immemorial. Many Greek and Roman historians describe a distinct peoples living in Palestine that identified as Palestinians since at least 6th century BCE. 64.231.187.83 (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The article gives the sense that it is trying to erase Jewish history and is inaccurate. It should be edited. Raconcilio (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Jordan was part of Palestine

There is hardly any mention that Jordan was referred to as Eastern Palestine. Dl.thinker (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You mean a small sliver of today’s northwestern Jordan. The vast majority of today’s Jordan was never considered part of Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Update your information! Many areas, such as Al-Karak, Ajloun, and Al-Balqa, were until recently affiliated with Palestinian districts. Dl.thinker (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

…all the places you mention are in the same small sliver of today’s northwestern Jordan. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong, even Amman was considered among these areas.--Dl.thinker (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Historic Amman is in that same small sliver of today’s northwestern Jordan, ~20 miles from the Jordan River.

Like almost all historic regional names, the exact definition ebbed and flowed over time. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dl.thinkerand @Onceinawhile - Jordan was a HUGE part of what was most recently the region of Palestine. The article is very misleading. Raconcilio (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Capital letters are not evidence. The sources in this article speak for themselves. I suggest you read them. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is grossly misleading and you know it.

Where are the sources that it's mapping the Holy Land and Israel? There are none. It should be deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Transjordan @Onceinawhile is the one who uploaded it to the Wikipedia article with the name File:PalestineAndTransjordan.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emirate_of_Transjordan.png

https://www.loc.gov/item/2019701185/ Raconcilio (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Should not include 'Holy Land' and 'Land of Israel' as an equivalence

The article does not give reference to 'also known as cartography of the Holy Land and cartography of the Land of Israel' and should not be included in the article. It is misleading and historically and politically inaccurate. Raconcilio (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

To further make the case, it's clear to see that the way Israel is defined is different than how Palestine is defined. It's also easy to understand that how the 'Holy Land' is mapped has more to do with Bible and events related to religion and not the area of Palestine.

There is also no reference for the statement made.

Misinformation causes killing of one another and making these pieces of information more clear will help to decrease tensions

HLHJ @BlueMoonset Onceinawhile will you please help to make a consensus? Raconcilio (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Tensions for a 75 year long conflict are not going to be decreased because of one change to a relatively minor Wikipedia article- nor is that something for Wikipedia to do. If you want to help decrease tensions, visit the conflict area(if you aren't there already) and offer your services as a negotiator. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It worries me that you're a Wikipedia editor and calling it a 75 year old conflict.

The Present Day West Bank was occupied by Jordan until 1967.

If we were able to have non-biased editing, there would be more accurate maps showing the outline and location of Jewish population under British Mandate of Palestine - Eretz Yisrael -- which became the Partition Agreement, indicating the land was split in similar ways to the land in Jordan, Syria, etc.

The Article also does not include any maps with the TransJordan and so the editors are clearly biased.

The page is in dire need of a review. Raconcilio (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

In general, we need to start somewhere and misinforation is part of it. There are people who search for answers and trust Wikipedia. This needs to be fixed ASAP. Misinformation leads to antisemitism and also misguides Palestinians who are wanting to know what is the right thing to do.

Les embolden people to cause harm. The truth builds bridges. This is a critical moment to do the right thing. Raconcilio (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop saying words that don’t mean anything.

This is an impeccably-sourced article, with all of the most important maps of the region from prior to the 20th century. It has been written to follow the academic works in the Bibliography.

Please carefully review the books in the Bibliography section of this article before responding. If you don’t have access, go read them in a library.

Until then, you are wasting your time throwing around empty claims based on some random snippets of pseudo-information wafting around in your mind. That is not how Wikipedia is built.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The article ignores several key pieces of mapping the area of Palestine. How it is defined, who is mapping it, how it is mapped and there is no source for the mapping of the Holy Land nor Israel. This goes against Wikipedia's rules of civility and verifiability. I am going to escalate to an administrator. Raconcilio (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

What has been called Palestine has changed OFTEN as there have not been defined borders politically. The article does not discuss this point. Raconcilio (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. Until you read the sources this is not a good use of your time. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

My point is there is no source for ' also known as cartography of the Holy Land and cartography of the Land of Israel'.

None of the maps say it's both unless they are next to one another in which case they are not the same map and should not use 'also known as'.

This should be deleted.

I am repeating but also your ignorance will hopefully allow me to get some admin support to have different editors watching the page. Raconcilio (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I have added a source for that statement. The renowned Israeli geographer Rehav Rubin uses the three terms interchangeably in his 2018 monograph. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as historical maps go, "Palestine", "Holy Land" and "Land of Israel" are essentially the same place. The use of the three names in the first sentence helps people to find this page. Also, you don't understand the role of admins. (I should know since I am one.) It's a good time for you to stop, as you are quite wrong and you won't convince anyone. Zero^talk 13:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

They are not essentially the same place which is what the problem is. Maps are drawn for different reasons. To draw countries, to show a region, to try to depict where Biblical places 'may' be.

The article is 'Cartography of Palestine' which is definitely not the same as cartography of Israel.

'Essentially the same place' is not good enough. There needs to be a source. Raconcilio (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The Biblical "Kingdom of Israel" is thought to have ended in 720 BCE. The State of Israel began in 1948. In the intervening period, during which time the area was not formally known as the Land of Israel or similar, many maps were made describing area.

This article is about pre-modern maps of the area. All were made between 150 CE and the late 19th century – again, during this time the area was not formally known as the Land of Israel or similar. As the article Timeline of the name Palestine will show you, during this period the land was primarily known as Palestine.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This does not imply they are the same. It in fact implies they are different. One is mapping the Kingdom of Israel, or present day country that is recognized as Israel (as opposed to modern mapping of Palestinian territories).

The article is not explicit about the time period and mapping of one territory after the other ends does not make them the same or give it the right to use 'aka'. It means that the mapping of one ended and another began.

Mapping of biblical areas typically relies on Biblical texts and artifacts.

They are not 'the same as' the others and this should in no way be implied nor stated. Raconcilio (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If we had articles called "Cartography of the Holy Land" or "Cartography of Eretz Yisrael", they would display the same maps. You need to read WP:STICK. Zero^talk 08:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I will create a cartography of Israel map. It won't look the same.

This article is inaccurate because it does not include all of the other configurations that it's looked like and other regions that were not included. I will surely be asking Admins to look at not only how you talk to other people trying to bring up policies about adding things without sources and calling very relevant topics dead horses, which lacks civility in a time when people literally are trying to wipe Israel off the map. Raconcilio (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand most of this comment. But if you would like to contribute by starting a new article, a new article called Cartography of Biblical Israel would be a valuable addition to the project. This article is primarily about maps made depicting the land as it was when the maps were made. But there is an important parallel tradition of maps being made to illustrate the Biblical stories.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Region should be given the reason for the name which came from Greeks describing Israelites

This is stated in another Wikipedia article and others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_Palestine#CITEREFNoth1939 https://www.scribd.com/document/484233772/Palestine-My-Love Raconcilio (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)