File talk:Mongol raids into Syria and Palestine ca 1300.svg

Discussion

The following discussion concerning this map was held on my English Wikipedia talk page:

If I could ask for a few tweaks:

• The arrow leading from Damascus should be much much smaller, because there was not a major troop movement from Damascus, just some raiding parties from there.

I decreased the width of the arrow and made it less red (washed it out), both of which dilute the "strength" of the arrow. I can't make it too thin, tho, or it can't be seen.

• There is considerable disagreement as to whether or not Jerusalem was even subjected to raids, let alone a major confrontation. A better way to handle that would be to have a dotted line proceed from Damascus through to Gaza, with Jerusalem and Hebron marked as being near the line, but not specific destinations (if that makes sense?)

I have removed the little orange starburst symbols from Jerusalem, Hebron, and Gaza. Now the arrows show that Mongols were in the vicinity of these 3 cities during these raids, something the evidence cited in the article supports, but not that they necessarily attacked these the way they did Aleppo or Damascus.

• It might also be good to show a "U-turn" arrow, or somehow provide dates:
  • Damascus taken in January
  • Majority of Mongol forces retreated in February
  • A "power vacuum" in Palestine until May, when the Mamluks advanced from Egypt again.

The purpose of the map is to show Mongol raids into Syria and Palestine, but not to supply their entire history. The "they left" information is understood, and is contained within the article. Adding it to the map would overcomplicate matters. Like articles, maps can be improved by leaving material out.

If you're tired of messing with it though, just let me know and maybe I'll try to adjust it based on your work! Thanks again, Elonka 05:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked the map. Hope you like this update. MapMaster (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Better, yes, but I still feel like it could potentially be misleading to a reader. The arrows imply that the Mongols set off directly to Jerusalem and Hebron, and that's just not backed up by sources. I would rather see an arrow that went past Jerusalem and Hebron, to Gaza. We know the Mongols got as far as Gaza (though there was no conflict there). --Elonka 05:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into the map, Elonka. The evidence says, as I read it, that the Mongols did more than just raid Gaza. So by the same token it might be misleading just to have one arrow pointing to Gaza. However, I will remove the arrows pointing toward Hebron and Jerusalem while I consider ways to show a more extensive Mongol presence in Palestine during this brief period. Thanks, MapMaster (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems I'm being picky on this, but this point has been the cause of over a year of wrangling, an ArbCom case, and even one user being completely banned from editing medieval articles, so I want to make sure we get it right.  :) How about this though? Instead of using long arrows down into Palestine, how about a fan of 2-3 "short" dashed or dotted arrows leading from Damascus, without specific end points? Then we can cover in the caption, "The Mongols launched raids southwards through Palestine, which reached as far as Gaza", and we don't need to go into any more detail than that. --Elonka 11:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this was a contentious issue. How about the latest version, which shows a (much smaller) arrow heading south toward a question mark? . . . toward a "?"? Hmm, how does one write this? In any case, let me know. We'll get this right yet. MapMaster (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to know the gory details, check at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance and its many subpages. There's also a current clarification active at w:en:WP:RFAR. But in any case, I like the new version much better, thank you! I recommend posting notes about it at the talkpages where it's used, and see if anyone else has concerns. Particular editors whose opinions I respect are Aramgar, Kafka Liz, and Adam Bishop, as they are highly educated on this subject. --Elonka 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)