Image talk:Hasmonean-map.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Objection to the use of this image

I object to the use of the image containing the map of the Hasmonean Kingdom set against the background of the so-called present-day borders of Israel. The image is also being used in the articles on Jewish history, on Maccabees, on Judas Maccabeus, on Hasmonean and on the Golan Heights. But these are not the internationally recognised borders of Israel. The image suggests that the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are integral parts of the state of Israel, whereas this is subject to international disputes. To present these borders as undisputed facts, is to lessen the quality of information provided by Wikipedia. I therefore decided to remove this image. In a (very swift) reaction by a Wikipedia administrator, he accused me of "blatant vandalism". That is absurd. I'm in the habit of using Wikipedia as a source of factual, unbiased information. Ocasionally, I make a small contribution to try to enhance the factual accuracy of an article. To enhance an article is not vandalism. It is what I thought Wikipedia was all about. There are undoubtedly many images available that could be used in these articles that depict the borders of Israel, while clearly marking the disputed Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights as disputed entities. Why would an unbiased encyclopedia, out of of all the available options, choose an image that is provided by the Israeli Foreign Ministry? If it is Wikipedia's standard policy to discourage user participation in this agressive way, then in my view, it fails in its stated purpose. --82.215.24.131 13:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The red border is only there so a person familier with Israeli geography can understand where the Hasmonean Kingdom was. It is not meant the have great polical meaning. The Israel-Jordan border in the Jordan valley is a MUCH better reference point than the green line, simply because more people know where the jordan valley is than where the green line is. Changing the map to have the red line snake around the green line would be much harder to understand. I would not object to having the green line in addition to the israel-jordan border line also, but I think it would be a bit silly. If you really think that people will get so confused by the red line you can change the caption to say explictly that the red line indicates the area of the modern state of Israel including the Golan Heights, the west bank and gaza. Removing the image just because you dissagree is not productive in any way and that is why your actions were labeled as vandalism. Jon513 14:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputed territories or not is frankly irrelevant for what the image is actually for. It does what it says on the tin, showing where the Hasmonean Kingdom was in a modern day context. The majority of people who go on the site will know where Israel is in the context of the world view. Its a simple image to help someone new to the subject locate the place in the modern world. To enter into a debate on "so-called present-day borders of Israel" is of no importance in this context. I don't deny that they are disputed territories I just fail to see how including them in this image is of any use to anybody studying the Hasmonean Kingdom. -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 15:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to Jon513, I believe you underestimate the Wikipedia user. Depictions of the actual green-line Israeli borders with an indication of the disputed status of the Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights are everywhere. They are in books, on the internet, on television. I never get confused, and I don't believe many people do. My objection is meant to enhance the factual accuracy of the articles involved. Why would Wikipedia, that strives to provide complete information, accept pieces of information that it knows to be incomplete, and therefore flawed? In addition, I would like to point out the interest that the Israeli government (being the source of this image) may have in presenting the borders in this way. Now, in response to Shimirel, I realize that this difference of opinion arises out of a relatively unimportant and unharmful issue ("Where was the Hasmonean Kingdom?"). But it is precisely through relatively unharmful side-issues that a certain party in the long run can effectively influence peoples views of reality and their political opinions. I wouldn't recommend any other government or political/military group as your independent source of information either. Why not keep it as neutral as possible? Isn't that what encyclopedias are for? --82.215.24.131 17:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that changing the caption to state explictly what he red line means would be neutral. do you have any objections to that? Jon513 17:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be the obvious answer, perhaps something along the lines of "Outline of the Hasmonean Kingdom, the red outline shows Israel’s border according to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs including the disputed occupied territories"? I've just been going around trying to locate a different map that’s neutral. "Every" map I'm finding is the same one taken from the IMFA. I have to agree I don't like the idea of an affairs bureau using information like this to push its own world view. Lets make a text change and hopefully add a more neutral map in the future. -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 19:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I just put this Image together its not perfect but perhaps it will do? -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 20:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

the image is too buzy, I think removing everything but the borders would work better. Jon513 12:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Something like this perhaps? Image I've left Har Meron and Jerusalem in place as useful land marks. -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 16:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

the other images are not outlineing the same area (though it is very close). how did you make these images? also could you go farther to the east to see the end of the hasmonean kingdom. Jon513 21:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Its based on an image taken off the Israel page on wikipedia then I brought over the outline from one image to the other. I thought I got the outline pretty good although as you say some of the outline is missing due to the new image not being wide enough. Ill see if I can find another image to include the whole thing asap -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Heres a vector one I put together its my own work, have a nose and see if its a better bet.Image -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 01:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

the text in the upper-left corner is unnessiary and would be impossible to read in the article. I think that the current image is fine the way it is, but I have not objection to changing it if it does not hurt its readablity. However, other editior have expressed their view (Amoruso, Shamir1) that the current image is the best and should not be replaced. Jon513 12:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think in terms of quality it's the best one in existance. If present day Israel bothers people one can simply remove that sentence. It's not important. Amoruso 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with all these replacement maps is they give more prominence to the present borders than they do to the historical region under discussion. I recommend something like the current map, with regional shading for to the historical region, and modern borders overlaid as lines. The only difference I would add would be lines to mark the occupied territories, and perhaps also other modern national borders in the region such as between Lebanon and Syria and so forth. —Ashley Y 04:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow.. Didn't expect so many people would care. I think the last image that Shimirel made would be fine. There's also one at GlobalSecurity. I'm no expert at Wikipedia and copyright issues, though. --82.215.24.131 17:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the current map is the best. Amoruso 12:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The map is perfectfly fine. --Shamir1 22:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I question the accuracy of the map altogether. The Hasmonean Kingdom did not have clearly demarcated borders, and mfa.gov.il does not give any source for it (that I can find). Most likely the borders are optimistic approximations. In particular, the inclusion of the Golan Heights is most likely to be propagandistic rather than historical. The red line and its caption are proof enough of the propagandistic nature of the map. Where is the scholarly support for these borders? --Zero^talk 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a logical fallacy here - what has the red line and caption have to do with the other "issue" - nothing. The map seems to be a very accurate description based on what is known from Josehphus' writings and other historical records. The fact Alexander Jannaeus expanded the kingdom to the Golan is also not disputed and is supported by archeology. Amoruso 12:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The forces of Alexander Jannaeus went there, yes. But why is it correct to draw the map to show the very brief greatest extent of Hasmonean control? Why not the least extent? That would be wrong too, but the point is that the borders were not static and it takes more than brief military control to make a kingdom. Maps drawn from the point of view of the neighboring kingdoms would show much of the same area as part of them. A better label for the map would be something like "The extent of Jewish expansion during the Hasmonian period". --Zero^talk 12:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The control wasn't only military - important cities were built like Gamla. I have no objection to your label, I don't think there was unique significance in the label though... Amoruso 12:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone object to keeping the current image and changing the caption to "The Hasmonean Kingdom, the red line indicates the area of the modern state of Israel, the Golan Heights, the west bank and gaza" . Changing the image to show every single modern border just makes it confusing. Jon513 13:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, You're saying the current map is confusing ? I think to avoid any disputes, not naming it at all is the best... there's no doubt such a boundary exists in red.. its definition is disputed. I don't see why there should be objections to the current one... I think it's clear from the seas and area what's the region. I hope, and I think it is, that it's clear also that the Hasmonean kingdom is the one in pink. Amoruso 20:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the redlines. They were unnecessary and controversial. Javadane 22:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

that's weird, it's a crippled image and it's hard to undetstand the area. I'm reverting it. I think you're highly mistaken here - there's nothing controversial about the red lines. They're cease-fire borders, they do not give any legitimacy to any political entity within them, and it's really just places the reader into the region - it's important so one can see where the golan heights are for example and other articles it can be used where your version will fail to do so... Amoruso 22:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Their use without explicit disclaimer does give political legitimacy. I've added Damascus and Jerusalem to the map as reference points, but personally prefer the previous one I added. Javadane 23:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

while the inclusion of Damascus and Jerusalem to the map makes the map a little better, it's still a lousy version compared to the original one with the red line. The claim that the red boundary has any political connotations doesn't make any sense IMO. Amoruso 03:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The point of this image in the article Golan Heights is to show how the Golan Heights corresponds to the acient kingdom. removing the border make the image worthless on that page. Jon513 11:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)