Template:Did you know nominations/Island of the Jewel

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 97198 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Island of the Jewel

(

)

... that medieval Islamic geography placed the Island of the Jewel (pictured) in the Sea of Darkness, east of the Dragon's Tail?

~~:* ALT1:... that medieval Islamic geographers believed the Island of the Jewel to be the easternmost point in the inhabited world?~~

ALT2:... that al-Khwārazmī's Island of the Jewel was probably Formosa or one of the Indonesian islands?
Reviewed: ~~Will do. Gimme a bit.~~ Ray Martynuik

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self nominated at 14:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC).

Article created anew by LlywelynII on March 15, with length of 1913 characters.
LlywelynII's QPQ review is in progress.
The book source provided is the only good source for most of the information about the Island. This is okay—it's a good source—though it's a little hard to recognize that it's the main source at first glance. I don't think this will present much of a problem to readers who want to pursue references. The authors are very clear on the point that the "Island of the Jewel" originates with al-Khwārazmī, not Ptolemy. (And, other sources available online confirm the reality and noteworthiness of this island.)
The book chapter in question should probably be cited as "The Book of Curiosities and a Unique Map of the World" by Yossef Rapoport and Emilie Savage-Smith (only two authors, might as well give Savage-Smith the mention!) contained within the volume Cartography in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (and you might consider mentioning the editors, Richard J.A. Talbert & Richard W. Unger, also, to make finding the volume just a little easier).
The first hook is intriguing and wonderful and I think we should run that one. It stretches convention very slightly, since the article refers to "large peninsula" and links to Dragon's Tail (peninsula); the sources do not directly give it this name; however, seems sufficiently clear that Rapoport & Savage-Smith are referring to the same cartographic artifact ("a large peninsula protruding southwards") in their essay. LlywelynII, if you have a source which names the Dragon's Tail as well as the Island of the Jewel, it would be great to include that. Though it seems plain to me that referring to the same thing, and I trust your judgment on the matter, it just seems that given the delicacy of identifying ancient constructs, it might be better to have something direct.
Is there a source for the historical material in the middle of the first paragraph? Al-Khwārazmī himself? Can you clarify this section a bit? When you write "missionized the country" are you referring to China? I think you are trying to imply with this context that Muslim voyagers would have gained familiarity with the area by A.D. 833—thus explaining their improvement on the Ptolemaic map—but this could be stated more overtly, and if possible attributed to a secondary source.
Now I feel like I'm getting a little picky, but it would be helpful if you could include more information in the reference for Al-Khwārazmī's Book of the Description of the Earth. Okay, maybe you're reading the original (is this it?) but even so it would be helpful to indicate whether your numbers are page numbers, to give a year of publication, etc.
The source for the claim about Formosa is a page from the Oxford University library system. I imagine this institution is at least so-so with fact-checking, so it's probably good enough to live in the article for now even though no author is cited directly. (Eventually, another source on this notion would be good.) For now I still feel the top hook is best.
Thank you very much for bringing these interesting aspects of historical cartography to the encyclopedia. They are really quite something. assalaam alaikum, groupuscule (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're very welcome!
  A) There's no need to clutter the ref. Et al is fine & the editors completely aside the point, although the additional author and editors are included in the template for those who are curious.
  B) The full title, however, is helpful for finding the volume. (Not that the ISBN doesn't already cover it.)
  C) I'll see if I can find something that explicitly connects the two names, but that is definitely the article dealing with the peninsula in question as shown by the cite. But you saw that. =)
  D) You mean the 2nd paragraph? It's aside the point of the hook but I'll see what I can do about (1) tightening up the phrasing so it's not confusing anyone and (2) trying to find an English translation of al-Khwarizmi (The numbers are from the other source, I think, and would presumably be universally applicable section numbers but you're right it could be checked and clarified. I have no idea what you found but the maps in it are all wrong for al-Khwarizmi's work. It might be Ibn Hawqal's Kitab Surat al-Ard, which is an entirely different work.) — LlywelynII 11:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

New references (and improved reference quality) are more than enough. (Though I can't access the Rapoport article, good faith is warranted.) Although the nomenclature used in the hook is not directly found in the source, the fact in question is. Excellent contribution. groupuscule (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC

Hi, I came to promote this and also like the first hook very much, but the hook fact needs to be clearly mentioned and cited in the article. Otherwise we're assuming that the "large peninsula" and the Dragon's Tail Peninsula are one and the same. Yoninah (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yoninah, what do you suggest we do? I concluded with high confidence that the "large peninsula" described in the source, and the "Dragon's Tail" peninsula about which Llwelynll has written another well-sourced article, are indeed one and the same—the issue is not so much assumption as nomenclature. The phenomenon was already recognized, with a clear identity, but lacked a proper name, it seems, and hence the introduction of "Dragon's Tail" so it can be easily referenced. (Does that correspond with your research, LlywelynII?)

I did notice at first, as you probably did, Yoninah, that the term "Dragon's Tail" is not in the article. Thus readers might be confused when they click on the link to the Island of the Jewel article for explanation. Maybe adding a parenthetical "(the Dragon's Tail peninsula)" after "even larger peninsula" in the text would do the trick? aloha, groupuscule (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This. As discussed and cited at Dragon's Tail (peninsula), al-Khwarizmi is the first documented instance of the land mass that is now known as the Dragon's Tail peninsula, where Eratosthenes had nothing and Ptolemy had an entire enclosing shore that turned the Indian Ocean into a landlocked sea. The land mass does not appear to have had a unified name during the time people believed it existed: instead, it was so large that it was divided into regions such as Sinae, Southern India, and Champa. That doesn't mean that it didn't exist or isn't appropriate to mention, but I'm loathe to add an entire needless section on the etymology of "Dragon's Tail peninsula" to the wrong article. Are we good with Groupuscule's gloss idea? — LlywelynII 01:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @LlywelynII: for providing the necessary cites. The hook refs are now verified and cited inline. The image is PD, although I think this would work best in the quirky slot. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)