Image talk:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Confusing
Navigating the complex relations of the colors in this map is very confusing. The problem is that this map is actually two seperate maps combined into one.
These two maps should be simply shown side by side. An alternative is to use more logical colors that would imply a layer of two colors imposed above a layer of three colors as opposed to a random assortment of colors.
As it is right now distinguishing these two layers is very confusing making the usefulness of this map marginal.Asteron 19:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it was very intentionally NOT made side-by-side, because the eye can't really so accurately compare outlines in that way.
- Some of the colors are actually kind of quasi-symbolic -- blue for Israel and green for Muslim-majority entities. Then the main areas of discrepancy are shown in high-prominence colors -- the magenta and kind of pink. If you're familiar with the 1949-1967 boundaries of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (which are Green+Magenta), then it isn't really all that confusing... AnonMoos 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- By the way, the technical term is Angry fruit salad... ;) AnonMoos 16:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] small section missing
Very good map, however it does leave out a small area in what is now the northern most region of the Jordan Valley of the West Bank which was originally assigned to the Jewish state but was then occupied by Jordan as part of the West Bank.72.27.26.133 18:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... I'm looking at the official UN map originally found at http://domino.un.org/maps/m3067r1.gif (that URL seems to be down right now) and it seems that any such area would have to be rather small. It also doesn't seem to be shown on most maps similar to this one. I'd need more specific documentation... AnonMoos 15:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- It also seems to leave out the area around the eastern border of the kineret, the one captured by syria and which became de-militarized, and also at the northern golan. See here - Image:UN Partition Plan Palestine.png Amoruso 07:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The "demilitarized zones" are more or less irrelevant to the purposes of this map -- they were small uninhabited areas which the Arabs claimed were "neutral zone" type no-man's-land buffers between Israel and Arab states, while the Israelis claimed that they were fully part of Israeli sovereign national territory, but demilitarized. The incompatibility between these views soon led to localized conflicts which ended the demilitarized status of the zones and resulted in their attachment to Israel. And the strip on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee was only a hundred feet wide, or something like that, and so wouldn't show up on the scale of this map... AnonMoos 12:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- If you look at the partition map there's a part on the golan north of kineret too. These areas, and mostly the kineret strip are very important, since Syria claims (claimed) they would consider sign a peace agreement only at that line - but the original partition line didn't place the syrians at the kineret. As it was, the area stayed without syrian presence - Asad the father used to say he placed his legs in the kineret which is not true, because it was de-militarized, but I think those lines are interesting to note, especially that part of it was supposed to be Jewish and at the present map it seems it always was supposed to be syrian. Amoruso 14:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
clearly you can see here the Jewish part :
--> see the orange map encompssing all the kineret, including the northern part which is missing from your map + the northern part near Lebanon. both should be colored blue or some other color. Amoruso 14:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC) btw it's all shown on the un link map you provided here. I suggest adding it a new hue of blue / something else, and show that Israel was supposed to get these parts which became no man's land/de-militarized. Amoruso 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're fixing it ? Amoruso 02:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's not a priority until I get some more detailed and semi-official reference which would reduce the amount of guesswork that would be involved... AnonMoos 23:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well if it won't be done in some reasonable time, I'm afraid I will contest the inclusion of the image. The current image gives the impression that Israel did not get full control of the kineret which is wrong. Amoruso 00:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Along much of the northeastern shore Sea of Galilee, only a 10-meter wide strip of territory was assigned to the Jewish state in the partition plan, and ten-meters wide is simply invisible on a map this scale!!!!! I can change the color of the northeastern blue boundary of the Sea of Galilee from light blue to black, maybe (if people think that will improve the image), but I can't show a ten-meter wide strip no matter how hard I try.
- As for the other changes, I need a good map to use as a basis (with a lot of relatively small-scale topographical features and/or local village names) so I can locate the relevant boundary with respect to appropriate landmarks, using my Israel survey maps. None of the maps offered on this page so far is good in that sense... AnonMoos 01:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well make sure you do that please. And if you want to change the border color do that, as long as it's clear that all the kineret was part of the jewish state. this is more important than the question of how to show the scale obviously, as what's important for readers is the actual areas designated. Amoruso 01:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Whatever -- I'm considering whether or not marking the shore of the northeastern Sea of Galilee with black line instead of a light blue line is really a good idea, and you ordering me about won't make me likely to do anything anytime sooner. In any case, this is a land map, not a water map, so not marking water boundaries is not actually a defect (note that there is no boundary marked in the Dead Sea) -- and if you had a real sense of cartographic proportion, then you would realize that on a map where 500 pixels represents 50 miles (very roughly), a strip of land ten meters wide has a visual width of maybe 1/16th of a pixel. Since you seem to be quite sure of yourself, I'm sure you'll be able to tell me how to mark a feature 1/16th of a pixel wide without any difficulty! AnonMoos 03:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm not ordering you around. I'm simply saying that if it won't be included, I will remove the image (contest you for removing it). Note that these parts are presented very well in the maps, both the partition and the u.n one. Scale is really of no great interest - you can see how it was done, and it's important to note this... it's also not a water boundary , it's a land boundary on the golan both east of the kineret and in the northern part much norther than the kineret. Amoruso 04:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Moved to commons
The image has been moved to commons. Electionworld Talk? 16:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
