Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Classification rationale and declaration of intent 2 What did you change? 3 How about an "Israel and Israeli-held territories map" 4 Alternative proposal

[edit] Classification rationale and declaration of intent

I am the creator of this map, which is an adaptation of an existing United Nations map (used with permission as set out at Template talk:UN map, which I negotiated with the UN Cartographic Section). I created it to provide a high-resolution alternative to existing maps such as the CIA World Factbook map of the region (Image:Is-map.PNG).

In summary, it provides much more information (roads, railways, watercourses, internal administrative boundaries, airport locations and UN deployment zones) than the basic World Factbook map. Crucially, the map shows both Israel and the Palestinian territories in equivalent geographical detail. I created the map specifically to provide an overview of both Israel and the territories at an equivalent resolution and scale, showing the geographical features of the entire region.

For this reason, I have categorised the map in both Category:Maps of Israel and Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories. Because the map treats both polities identically, it is appropriately to list it in both categories. By contrast, outline political maps such as Image:Is-map.PNG and Image:Gz-map2.png focus only on one polity, and therefore are relevant to only that polity's category. -- ChrisO 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, this image replaces an earlier image, Image:Israel.png, which I also created. The reasons for the change in naming (and other changes made at the same time) are given in my post below. The original Image:Israel.png will be deleted shortly. -- ChrisO 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A) you didn't create the map. Give credit to the UN cartographers. B) The first 'image' you 'created' was merely the UN map with the disputed areas emphasized. You then one-upped yourself by then changing the heading and title to terms ('occupied' and 'territories') that are very loaded and ignoring various discussions on multiple article talk pages. --Shuki 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The licensing conditions mean that we aren't supposed to attribute the map to the UN cartographers - see Template:UN map. I was the one who negotiated the licence in the first place, so I'm pretty familiar with the requirements. As for the title and terms, perhaps you could advise on what would be an acceptable alternative. I've merely followed what I understood to be the standard UN terminology - I'm not familiar with the "various discussions on multiple article talk pages" that you refer to. -- ChrisO 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What did you change?

What did you change other than the new POV title? --יהושועEric 22:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider the title to be POV - could you please explain? The changes are:

1) The filename. This was a technical decision - it turned out that the same filename had previously been used for something else on the Commons. Other Wikipedias were still referencing the deleted image, producing some very odd effects. Plus a more descriptive filename is obviously better.

2) The caption on the map. I created the map specifically to cover both Israel and the territories under Israeli control, as explained in the section above. The map caption therefore needs to reflect the map's subject matter. As the map is derived from a UN source, I used what appears to be the preferred UN terminology for those territories - also, "occupied territories" is less presumptive than "Palestinian territories" and is also more accurate (the Golan Heights aren't inhabited by Palestinians, as far as I know?).

3) The position of the map scale. This was originally positioned over the Mediterranean Sea, just above the Gaza Strip. I moved it to the bottom of the image, which is more conventional and makes the left side of the map less cluttered.

Hope this helps. -- ChrisO 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How about an "Israel and Israeli-held territories map"

I think some people object to the word "occupied". Is the Gaza Strip "occupied", "controlled", "held", "surrounded", or a large landlocked prison. I suggested creating a map category called "Maps of Israeli-held territories" at this talk page: Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories. That way we could include "Maps of the Golan Heights" or "Maps of the Golan" as a subcategory. --Timeshifter 02:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to use Israeli-occupied territories. -- ChrisO 07:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

One more datapoint: the CIA World Factbook map, which I don't think anyone has objected to in the past, also calls them "Israeli-occupied". See Image:Cia-is-map2.gif. -- ChrisO 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. I may be choosing a less popular name. The most popular English name is "Israeli-occupied territories." So that should be the map category name. As for my latest view about the title of this individual map, see the next section. --Timeshifter 10:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "Palestinian territories" is far more popular when compared to either of the other names. See the number of results from these Google phrase searches:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22israeli-occupied+territories%22

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22israeli-held+territories%22

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22palestinian+territories%22

So that has to be a map category. It might be possible to create a higher-level map category called "Maps of Israeli-occupied territories." Subcategories of it would be "Maps of the Palestinian territories" and "Maps of the Golan Heights."--Timeshifter 11:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are the current result totals for the Google phrase searches:

68,800 - "israeli-occupied territories"

256 - "israeli-held territories"

1,260,000 - "palestinian territories" --Timeshifter 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative proposal

Would it be more acceptable if the map was recaptioned "Israel with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights" - eliminating the collective term "territories" altogether? -- ChrisO 07:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the current naming is neutral. Good job on your work. Asabbagh 08:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I like "Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and environs." There are also the UNIFIL and UNDOF areas. So "environs" covers all the bases. That way we no longer get these specious arguments about the map title blocking the placing of the map in map categories unless the nations and territories covered are mentioned on the map title. It is a ridiculous argument because there are many maps titled after one of the nations on the map that are used in many wikipedia pages because the map covers more than one nation in detail. --Timeshifter 09:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

On all other country articles I checked, the map title is the country name, not with surrounding areas. The map of Canada is not 'Canada and the United States'. Your first modified map with the emphasized green parts (why were they emphasized rather than 'Israel' itself I'm not sure) was somewhat an attempt to place a POV (though I am not accusing you of taking a side, but rather you interpreting the situation in your own personal way), but then you emphasized this change with the 'occupied territories' bit. If the UN has a map that can be used, then what is wrong with that one? --Shuki 17:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Maps of Canada don't normally show the whole of the United States. If there was such a map, "Canada and the United States" would be the appropriate title. As explained above, I created this map specifically to show Israel and the occupied territories at an equivalent level of detail to provide an overview of the entire region between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Israel is emphasized - it's shown in beige rather than the brown colour of the surrounding countries. The occupied territories aren't part of metropolitan Israel or the surrounding countries, so they obviously can't be depicted in the same colour as either. As for using the UN map, the licence from the UN is specifically predicated on the map being modified. Using unmodified maps isn't covered. -- ChrisO 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest people look at the maps here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_disputed_territories

There are many maps that cover multiple nations and the adjoining disputed territories. They have all kinds of titles. Or no title. The map that ChrisO created by modifying the UN map is far better than the previous CIA map it replaced. It is much larger, and much more detailed. The previously-used CIA map was an adaptation of this map: Image:Cia-is-map2.gif. The modified CIA map was on many wikipedia pages having to do with Israel and the Palestinian territories. There was a lot of discussion over that modified CIA map too. But people preferred it over the unmodified CIA map. Because the modified CIA map used a different color for the occupied territories. People said that the different color made it clear that the West Bank was not part of Jordan. "Occupied territories" was on both the modified and unmodified CIA map. It is the most common English name used when discussing those territories as a whole. So it could be used as part of the title of this map. So could my suggestion of "Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and environs." There is more discussion of related issues at Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories. --Timeshifter 19:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)