Image talk:Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An editor on this page insisted that admins requested talk from a previous image would be included on this talk page, for relevant and current chat about this image skip here: Current Image Discussions

Contents 1 Historical Talks 1.1 Talk page from previous version of map is at the top 1.2 Classification rationale and declaration of intent 1.3 What did you change? 1.4 How about an "Israel and Israeli-held territories map" 1.5 Alternative proposal 1.6 Colours 1.7 English wikipedia pages using this map 1.8 Synthesis proposal 1.9 Proposed new versions 1.9.1 Jaakobou Image 1.9.2 ChrisO Image 2 Talk from previous versions of the map 3 Current Image Discussions 3.1 Gaza 3.2 Global Placement of the Arab-Israeli dispute 4 Regional locater maps to place on the main map. 5 Map has been copied to commons 6 Lake Tiberias?

[edit] Historical Talks

An editor on this page insisted that admins requested talk from a previous image would be included on this talk page, for relevant and current chat about this image skip here: Current Image Discussions

[edit] Talk page from previous version of map is at the top

Admins have requested that discussion of previous versions of this map be together with later discussion. Latest discussion is at the bottom. --Timeshifter 14:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[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)

I've deleted the image; restore the original, without your added commentary. Your actions regarding these images are becoming increasingly abusive, and enough is enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

People may wish to see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive223#Blatant abuse of speedy deletion by Jayjg. The image has been undeleted by the near consensus of the admins commenting there. --Timeshifter 17:12, 1 April 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)

Per my comments on Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories, I don't think the problem is with the name, but with categorising it as Palestinian territories, a term which doesn't appear on the map, in addition to the problems of differing definitions and POV. I think we could resolve this by tagging what does appear: the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Tewfik^Talk 20:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are the result totals for the Google phrase searches:

68,800 - "israeli-occupied territories"

256 - "israeli-held territories"

1,260,000 - "palestinian territories"

Wikipedia uses the most popular names. "Palestinian territories" is far more popular when compared to either of the other names. 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." The Gaza Strip and the West Bank are considered to be part of the Palestinian territories. See the article on it. The name of that article has survived many editors and admins, so it is acceptable to use it as a map category name too. --Timeshifter 00:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia doesn't use "the most popular name" - we have policies like NPOV to take into account. The rest of what you say has already been replied to by others on Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories. Tewfik^Talk 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

From Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Identification of common names using external references:

Identification of common names using external references.

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.

• The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
• International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
• Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
• Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
• Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp .

From: Wikipedia:Naming conflict

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

See more info at Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories. --Timeshifter 14:34, 30 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)

[edit] Colours

Timeshifter, no one is disputing that the UN map is not better than the CIA map. I certainly support Chris' choice to replace it, but not the liberty he took to add interpretation via the title. Another thing I noticed is that while Israel and surrounding territory are coloured in shades of brown, Chris chose green for the other territory. Green is a significant colour in the Arabian world, the green colour which stands out might be construed as subtle POV to describe the territory. I suggest changing the colour to a more neutral brown hue. --Shuki 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem - the map title is fact - it shows Israel and the Occupied Territories. There is no POV there, just the truth (only the most blinkered Israeli could say they are not occupied territories) and it is the name given to the areas by almost every country in the world. And Shuki - don't you think the colour issue is going a bit too much into the world of conspiracy theories? Number 57 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Esthetics, not conspiracies. I would make the same argument if Chris decides to change it to pink instead. --Shuki 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Brown won't work - the neighboring states are already brown. Blue isn't usable because of the potential for confusion with the sea, watercourses and the UN deployment areas in the north. Yellow won't work because that's already used for Israeli territory. Shades of red, including pink, are unsuitable because the roads are already in pink. I chose green not because of any "subtle POV" but simply because it's the only primary colour which isn't already in use for some other feature on the map. -- ChrisO 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just had an idea on this. How about retaining the same colours but using them for different things? Light green instead of brown for the neighboring states, yellow for Israel, brown instead of light green for the occupied territories? How does this sound? -- ChrisO 11:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English wikipedia pages using this map

[This section was written April 1, 2007 concerning an earlier version of the map. The wikipedia pages now use newer versions of the map.]

An important reason for placeholder English wikipedia pages for wikimedia commons images is that the placeholder page lists all the English wikipedia pages using an image. The image is not stored on English wikipedia servers. It is stored at the commons for use by various wikipedia sites that use various languages. This saves server space and is a big reason for having the wikipedia commons. Here is the current list below of English wikipedia pages using this map. The list can be found on the image placeholder page: Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png

   * History of Palestine
   * History of Israel
   * Yasser Arafat
   * Israeli-Palestinian conflict
   * Palestinian state
   * Oslo Accords
   * Palestinian refugee
   * Jewish exodus from Arab lands
   * Projects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs
   * 2000 Camp David Summit
   * Mahmoud Abbas
   * Road map for peace
   * Beirut Summit
   * East Jerusalem
   * Elon Peace Plan
   * Geneva Accord
   * History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
   * Israel's unilateral disengagement plan
   * Israeli peace camp
   * Palestine
   * Wye River Memorandum
   * Madrid Conference of 1991
   * Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
   * Taba Summit
   * Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics
   * Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum (1999)
   * Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron
   * Quartet on the Middle East
   * Realignment plan
   * Template:Israel-Palestinian Peace Process
   * Lieberman Plan
   * Israel

The placeholder page is created when categories are added to the page. The English placeholder page for a commons image is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:COMMONS_FILENAME

You can substitute any wikimedia commons filename in the above URL. Then click the link to see the placeholder page. The placeholder page is made permanent by adding categories to it.

You can see the commons image filenames by going to various commons categories.

For this map the current categories are Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories and Category:Maps of Israel.

The category code added to this placeholder page is:

[[Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories]]

[[Category:Maps of Israel]]

Images can be in multiple categories. --Timeshifter 17:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synthesis proposal

I think that we should use the ChrisO version of the map, but we should change the caption to something like "Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and environs." That way there are no political implications either way. I also like Chris0's idea for color changes: "Light green instead of brown for the neighboring states, yellow for Israel, brown instead of light green for the occupied territories?" This removes any hint of POV coloring. I think we should take every easy opportunity to avoid POVs in maps. Sometimes we are stuck with category names, though, since they are the most popular names in English, and to use much less popular names would just make it difficult for people doing Google searches for the popular names such as "Palestinian territories". The less-popular wikipedia category names would not show up as much in Google results. --Timeshifter 20:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new versions

[edit] Jaakobou Image

changes in this replacement:

1. Title - less POV presentation.
2. Gaza - Disengaged from at 2005.
3. Golan - Israeli by Law since 1981.
4. West Bank - Disputed territory, currently under joint custody.
5. Globe - places the arab-israeli conflict on the map.

Jaakobou 18:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am against this image.

1. "Occupied territories" is not POV, it is fact. "Disputed" is POV, as it suggests that Israel has a possibly legitimate claim to them.
2. The Golan should not be the same colour as Israel, as it is internationally recognised as being occupied in the same way the West Bank is (no matter what Israeli law has to say on the issue).
3. "Arab Palestinians"? Which Palestinians are not Arabs?
4. The world comparison is a bit pointless, and could even be seen to be subtly suggesting that Israel is so small compared to its neighbours that it needs a bit more land...
5. Syria is the "Syrian Arab Republic". Also, why are the only two surrounding countries to have their names written in full also the only two that contain the word "Arab"? Subtle POV again...
6. Having a separate border type for Gaza and the WB is pointless; despite the disengagment, it is still the Green Line, wherever it is.

Number 57 19:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, have a look at a link to a previous discussion on the terminology here - and also check the archives. The issue has been thoroughly discussed in the past and it was decided to stick with "occupied territories". Number 57 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou. Israel does not consider the Golan to be "Israeli by Law since 1981". See Golan Heights#Current status.

Number 57,

1. "Disputed" is the proper term, Israel does indeed have a "possibly legitimate" (wtf??) claim to them considering the Six Day War.
2. The Golan, while it does not neccesarily need to be the same color as Israel, it is however part of Israel regardless.
3. "Arab Palestinians"? - certainly palestinian arabs are not palestinian jews.
4. The world comparison, indeed is a bit suggestive - however, it is a geographic fact.
5. Syria is the "Syrian Arab Republic". syria and egypt are arab republics, jordan is hashemite and is no longer in dispute with israel... also, "hashemite" looks like poop when i tried adding it.
6. Having a separate border type for Gaza and the WB is most fitting the changes of 2005 - i find your comment on this one to suggest your own bias.

Number 57 (what is that username???). Israel does indeed consider Golan Hights to be part of Israel since 1981 - i find it outrageous that you don't even read the links you give out... did you ever had a chance to read the law itself?? Jaakobou 08:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Somehow when you rearranged the talk page (I liked the new arrangement) my signature tag must have gotten lost. I am the one that added this comment: "Jaakobou. Israel does not consider the Golan to be 'Israeli by Law since 1981'. See Golan Heights#Current status." I did read it. I suggest you reread it since Israel does not currently consider the Golan Heights to be part of Israel. Whatever happened in 1981 no longer applies. --Timeshifter 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Israel does not have a legitimate claim to the occupied territories; it has been a principle of international law since WWII that land cannot be acquired by force. Again, this issue has been very thoroughly discussed on Wikipedia before, and it was decided to stick with the term "occupied" (see here).
2. Again, the Golan is only part of Israel according to Israel (but not all Israelis). The rest of the world recognises it as occupied Syrian territory.
3. The point about "Arab Palestinians" is that it is a tautology (i.e. saying the same thing twice)
4. The border between Gaza and Israel and the West Bank and Israel is the same; if you want to be really picky you could say the Gaza border is the same thing as the lines that surround the "A" territories (i.e. nominally under full Palestinian control), but it is very pointless to use a different demarcation.
5. "i find it outrageous that you don't even" bother to check who actually wrote comments before defaming their author.

Number 57 19:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ChrisO Image

Following the comments received on this map, I've amended it to create the image on the right. The major changes are:

• Caption - rather than get into the argument over occupied vs disputed territories, let's just call them what they are - the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights. The T-word isn't used at all.
• Filename - "Is-wb-gs-gh.png" is suitably nondescript. :-)
• Colours - the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights are now in the brown colour originally used for the neighboring states. I tried using the light green colour for these states but it just ended up overwhelming the image, so I've used an orangey colour instead. Positively no green is used!

One minor change - the symbols info box has been moved down and slightly tweaked to make room for the bigger caption.

Any comments? -- ChrisO 20:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! --Timeshifter 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of all the details of the dispute you're having with the other editors here, but it looks like attempting to make a compromise, which is a good thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to add your views to the discussion (not a dispute - we're being quite civilized about it). Though if you do, I'd suggest reading through the talk page first to familiarise yourself with the points of contention. -- ChrisO 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Look's fine to me. Being very picky, perhaps a comma is needed in the title ("Israel with the West Bank, Gaza Strip..."). Also, several city names are badly transliterated (e.g. Elat instead of Eilat) - I can provide a full list of them if you like! Number 57 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the point about the transliteration. I'd just assumed that it was the UN's way of doing it (e.g. Yafo instead of Jaffa, which is the way I've always seen it spelled previously - see Jaffa Cake!). Could you provide a list of the names that need changing? -- ChrisO 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, I think this is all that people have asked for - describe what is on the map without introducing new terminology associated with one point-of-view. I hope you realise what the problem with your enforcing one position with admin tools while the discussion was ongoing was, however correct it seemed to you, and I hope that you will be more sensitive to this sort of situation in the future. On a technical note, you should probably enlarge "with the" or shrink the "and" for conformity, and if you are going to change the place names, you should probably adopt the spelling decided on for their WP entries. Tewfik^Talk 23:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been working towards a compromise solution from day one, as this talk page shows. The constant accusations of bad faith have not helped, to put it mildly. But I'm glad you seem to think the new version is acceptable. -- ChrisO 23:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no accusation of bad faith. There is a statement that you went about presenting your point of view in a manner that you shouldn't have (for the second time). No one is trying to indict you of anything, but I believe people want to make sure that you are aware of our concerns and that you use more care, so that no one has to fear that your position as an admin will play a role in the outcome of a content dispute. Can you put our minds at ease? Tewfik^Talk 23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can we discuss the map and not the previous conflict? Take that elsewhere. This is about the map. --Golbez 23:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik seems to be Poisoning the well. It needs to be answered. Here is an earlier quote from ChrisO:

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)

So, ChrisO has been working consistently to improve the map. Tewfik's only concern stated on this talk page previous to his last couple recent comments has been his objections to the category name: Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories. --Timeshifter 01:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I commented about the map and then responded to ChrisO's assertion that there were accusations of bad faith. Perhaps Timeshifter could refrain from his accusations of bad faith? Tewfik^Talk 03:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You parachuted in with an offtopic baseless rant. --Timeshifter 03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The current colouring is fine except for the green. The 'new' ChrisO orange is weird looking. What happens if the 'other territories' a darker hue of the 'Israel' beige (between beige and the light brown of other countries) instead of another colour entirely? --Shuki 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I happen to believe my version is better for three main reasons:

1. a refrence to the gaza disengagement.
2. registration of the golan hights under israeli jurisdiction. (חוק יסוד רמת הגולן)
3. geographic placement on the globe. Jaakobou 08:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All of those are political additions. I thought the goal was to make this strictly a geographic map without any political labeling or coloring. Almost every one of your additions can be argued over. The Golan is the same color as Israel on your map. On the original UN map it was the same color as Syria. See:

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf

Chris0 changed the background color of the Golan so that it was not the same color as Israel or Syria. Same for the West Bank. It was originally the same color as Jordan. Gaza was originally the same color as Egypt.

You added a different border line around Gaza.

The UN map was already a fairly good non-political map. The only changes really needed were the change in the title on the map, and the change in the background colors.

Down the line Chris0 might add better English transliterations of the city names, etc.. He might slightly tweak the title with the addition of commas, etc.. I think the Chris0 map is fine as it is, and can be updated as needed with uploads of the revised map over the old map. Using the same name of the map:

Image:Is-wb-gs-gh.png

This is the standard way wikipedia maps are updated with new maps as new ones come out from the UN, etc.. The latest UN or CIA maps are modified in the same way as before and uploaded over the old maps. That way the links are maintained, and the map continues to show up in the wikipedia pages. --Timeshifter 17:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've created a second revised version in the light of Shuki's comments - the orangey and brown colours have been reversed so that the orange is now used for the various territories and the brown is used for the neighboring states, as it was in the original map. Personally I think this works best of all of the three versions I've created so far - the orange is quite a strong colour but it doesn't predominate as it did in the first revised version. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO 18:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I much prefer 2 to 1, the orange is indeed a strong color. --Golbez 18:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I like version 2 better also. Somehow the colors are more pleasing. --Timeshifter 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be awkward, but I prefer 1 - I think the colouring of Egypt, Jordan et. al makes Israel and the occupied territories stand out better. Number 57 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Make the "and" smaller, and add commas. --Golbez 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I also suggest leaving out "WITH THE" and substituting a comma instead. I am happy with almost any coloring scheme except for coloring that may imply a POV to some people. --Timeshifter 20:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, i believe you have consensus to firstly replace the current bias image. later, we can discuss other possible changes. Jaakobou 17:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, thanks for the change, but could you tone the orange down, or otherwise use the striping like Jaakobou used for that purpose? --Shuki 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've produced a third and hopefully final revised version which you can see on the right. Changes this time are the addition of commas and the shrinking of the "and". I've retained the "with the", as the caption doesn't look right without it. Regarding the colours, I did try toning down the orange but it didn't work - it just became a brown colour, too similar to that of the neighboring states. I think I'll have to ask you to defer to my aesthetic judgement on that point. :-) I don't want to use stripes or change the representation of the border lines because that's an unconventional way of representing the territories - the standard mainstream way of showing them is as being separate from metropolitan Israel, displayed as a solid block in a different colour. I checked Encarta, Britannica and the CIA World Factbook; all use this sort of representation. As I'm sure you can understand, I want to produce something that reflects mainstream cartography, rather than striking out on a novel and controversial path. -- ChrisO 23:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. "Golan Heights" on one line now is better than when it was split onto 2 lines. --Timeshifter 02:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought so too. :-) -- ChrisO 08:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now replaced the original map with this latest version in all the articles where it was in use. Thanks, everyone, for your cooperation in working this out. We got there in the end! -- ChrisO 06:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk from previous versions of the map

Old "Israel and the Occupied Territories" Image talk page can be found here Image_talk:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png Jaakobou 10:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Some admins requested we keep together the talk from various versions of the map. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive223#Blatant abuse of speedy deletion by Jayjg. So I copied the talk from Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png to here. That map and its talk page may eventually go through the official deletion process. So we need the talk copied here now. That old talk page puts the latest discussion here in context. --Timeshifter 09:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Timeshifter, (1) the request was that the image previous to the "israel and occupation" (i.e. Image:Israel.png) would not have it's talk page deleted. (2) copying the talk page here is extremely disruptive and makes the discussion as to improvements to the new image impossible.

Please refrain from copy pasting the information here again, if anyone wishes, they can now easily find the old talk page on the previous dispute. Jaakobou 10:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing the comments of others. I am pasting in the old talk. So it is my choice, too, not just admins. The admins asked that the old talk page be added to the new talk page. The admins logic holds for all previous discussion for this map. Including the last version of the map. See: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It says: "As a rule, don't edit others' comments." So stop editing out the comments I am adding here. The previous talk page puts much of our discussion in context. There is no reason anymore to keep the old map or talk page. And even if they are kept awhile, I and others, don't like having to open up 2 talk pages to read past discussion concerning this map. You are approaching a 3RR violation. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. --Timeshifter 14:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the talk across. I'll see if I can do a history merge when I have a bit more time. -- ChrisO 14:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current Image Discussions

[edit] Gaza

file is lacking refrence to the 2005 Gaza disengagement.

please state opinions/vote on a change in this matter:

• Support - obviously a change has occured which was a huge catalist for change of gen. Israeli public perception of the peace proccess with the Arab Palestinians. there is no good reason in using a map from 2004 which is very much out dated if there is a more informative/relevant one. Jaakobou 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are the borders the same? I thought we were trying to make this strictly a geographic map. --Timeshifter 03:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the boundaries are the same, and it's strictly a geographic map. The Gaza Strip appears to be regarded internationally as still de facto occupied (see e.g. the current CIA World Factbook map). Actually, just to be ultra-accurate, the boundaries of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are actually armistice lines from 1949 and 1950 respectively rather than borders. You'll note that they're marked as such on both the CIA and UN maps. As I said earlier, I'm sticking to the standard international depiction of the region. -- ChrisO 06:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

you should back that "de facto occupied" WP:OR with an online source from a newly updated CIA world factbook *shrug*... not with a pic that has a small asterix next to it. Jaakobou 07:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The UN map does not have the word "occupation" on it anywhere. This makes it more of a geographic map, than a political map. The borders and boundaries are still correct. So the map is still accurate today. The map glossary on the left says "Armistice Demarcation Line" for the line around the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Is that not still accurate today, or should another name be used for that line? --Timeshifter 10:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Timeshifter, pay attention to the issue in contention. I was reffering to User:ChrisOs claim that Gaza is still considered occupied as of 2007, which might fit in with the UN map created back in 2004... but no longer fits in with current 2007 status of the area after the 2005 disengagement. thus my request for a backing of the "de facto" WP:OR claim. Jaakobou 11:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is considered to be occupied or not is irrelevant to the map. Because the map is geographic and not political. I suggest you pay attention to the map issue, and not to the political issues. Wikipedia talk pages are not a political discussion forum. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It says: "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues." --Timeshifter 14:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The status of the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are all different. Just like you wouldn't make the Turkish half of Cyprus in the same color as the Gaza Strip, the color should be different for the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip. Something similar goes for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. There are no more settlements there and Israel doesn't keep its army there except for incursions every once in a while; that does not merit the name "occupied" and definitely does not merit having there being no differentiation between the two, although obviously they are a part of the same people and the contentious status of the regions is a result of the same war. Naming the map a map of Israel and its occupied territories is also misleading as the map includes other countries as well which by consensus (and fact) are not occupied by Israel as well as regions which Israel's supposed occupation of is contentious (ie. the Gaza Strip). Yonatan ^talk 11:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You might have a point about the map colors. Maybe all the territories should have different colors. Your other point no longer applies. The current map Image:Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png does not say "Israel and the occupied territories". --Timeshifter 14:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm reminding that the discussion here is about the inclusion of a Gaza 2005 disengagement on the map - and that those who support (or reject) this inclusion should state just that in an easy to spot manner. Jaakobou 11:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• support::Gaza has not been occupied since 2005, therefore this map is invalid. Jaakobou is 101% correct and I suggest you follow his plan. eternalsleeper

Map does not say whether Gaza is occupied or not. It is currently a geographic map, and not a political map. --Timeshifter 14:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why you would be objected to a more updated, modern map? It makes no sense to me. Please explain!

--eternalsleeper

• Oppose - Including text such as "occupied", "Gaza 2005 disengagement", etc. introduces politics to the map. I prefer that the map be strictly a geographic map. --Timeshifter 14:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to get into the voting game. I stated at the outset that I created this as a geographical map. The colours reflect that. If it was a political map then, yes, each of the territories and the neighboring states would have different colours - but they don't because it's not. The neighboring states are one single colour because they're neither Israel nor the territories. The territories are one single colour because they're neither Israel nor the neighboring states. Israel is one colour because it's neither the territories nor the neighboring states. It's as simple as that - it's merely a way of highlighting Israel and the territories, not a statement of the political status of any of the polities in question. This map wasn't created as a political map and I'm not going to turn it into one. Please leave it at that. -- ChrisO 14:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter & ChrisO Why does the addition of the disengagement from 2005 introduces politics any more than the 1948 boundary of formaer mandate or the 1949 armitance demarcation line ??? why does it "introduce" politics at all as it's a fact since 2005 ? Jaakobou 16:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I may not be understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that the boundary line around Gaza should be relabeled to be the "2005 disengagement line" instead of "Armistice Demarcation Line"? If so, why? Are they not one and the same thing? --Timeshifter 16:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

They are not the same thing. The Armitance line (i'm not sure if the map shows the one from 1948 or from 1967) is a UN based recomendation, on post-war ownership, that nobody really cares about and the 2005 disengagement line is a finalized (as of this moment) solution to the gaza dispute. A person so adamant on the way he wants this image to look should know this stuff allready. Jaakobou 06:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You did not know that Israel does not currently consider the Golan Heights to be Israeli territory until I pointed out the current status section of the wikipedia article. So until you can point me to a wikipedia page saying that the armistice line no longer applies, then we should keep the UN map labeling of the boundary lines in my opinion. I suggest you tone down the incivility. Please see: Wikipedia:Civility. Also, I have been very flexible in how the map might look. See my previous comments. I have been flexible on the map title, the map colors, the transliteration of the city names, the globe, and more. But other people are offended by "the occupied territories" or the color green on the map, etc.. So I have suggested we meet their requests if at all possible. Mainly by keeping the map geographic, rather than political. You seem to want political stuff on the map. So I have to choose between offending you or those who don't want a POV on the map in any way. I think the spirit of wikipedia is to choose ways with the least POV possible. Or to balance the POVs by expressing all the significant POVs. It is almost impossible to put all POVs on a map in a few words here and there on the map. So I prefer to keep the map geographic. --Timeshifter 09:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) your personal interpertation of Israeli law is not needed for this topic of adding the gaza line. (2) don't talk to me about civility after insisting on disruptive copy-pasting and threatning and other offtopic rehtorics... which leads me to my last point: (3) you totally disregarded what i just replied in regards to the difference between the lines. Jaakobou 11:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"So until you can point me to a wikipedia page saying that the armistice line no longer applies, then we should keep the UN map labeling of the boundary lines in my opinion." --Timeshifter 13:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - A Gaza disengagement line would be less political and more factual than the other lines and would negate some of the bias from the current version of that map. MouseWarrior 14:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Placement of the Arab-Israeli dispute

file is lacking refrence to the Global Placement of the Arab/Muslim-Jewish/Israeli dispute.

please state opinions/vote on a change in this matter:

• Support - The issue is many times confused as a Zinoists vs. Palestinians dispute and many times the excentric group of Neturei Karta is mentioned as an example for "even jews don't support israel". a proper placement of the Jewish pretext on the globe vs. Muslim is due to alleviate some of the POV confusion. Jaakobou 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The globe in the original map only named Israel. See

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf

So it is better that it is not in this modified map, since this map is for Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. Plus it helps lower the kilobytes in the image to not have the globe. ChrisO also cropped the map sides. I think this is good because this map is for Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. Not for Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, etc. The cropping also lowers the kilobytes. It is great that such a detailed map now only needs 259 kilobytes at full size. --Timeshifter 03:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I deliberately left out the globe for three reasons: (1) it's illegible at low resolutions, which is how most people will view the map (i.e. displayed as a thumbnail in articles); (2) file size, as Timeshifter indicates; and (3) I want to turn the map into an SVG image in due course, and the globe would have complicated that task. I don't believe it's an essential detail. -- ChrisO 06:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, (1) I disagree with your legibility concerns. (2) SVG concerns do not effect the extra info debate one bit. (3) there's a slight sense of bad faith when a person who edits images uses the "file size" as an excuse to a 2300x1400px image which would have nearly zero effect by an addition of small data. Jaakobou 07:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

By itself the globe does not make much difference in file size. But every little bit counts. Thus the cropping of the sides of the map. too. I do some image editing myself, and I know how every little bit adds up. But the more important point about the globe is that it reintroduces the original problem some editors had with using the map in any map category other than in Category:Maps of Israel. They said that the map was titled "Israel" and so it should only be categorized under Israel maps. They are incorrect, but to satisfy that objection ChrisO changed the title of the map to list all the geographic areas. Same for the globe. It was deleted because it only names Israel. This map is to be used also in Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories. --Timeshifter 09:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, in accordance to this comment, i'd assume you would support a global placement of this map if it includes the west bank, gaza and golan in that placement. Jaakobou 11:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It might work if the text "Israel" was removed from the globe. Or if the text was expanded to "Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights". But then the text would overwhelm the globe. I don't think the globe adds much to the map. And your green coloring added to the globe added a political element. I thought we were avoiding the color green on this map. I don't care either way whether the original globe is on the map or not. It would be better to use a separate globe map altogether. One that is larger and not part of this map. It is easy to use 2 separate map images on a wikipedia page. I believe there are such regional globe maps in the relevant map categories. Your initial question in this section was a political question: "...Global Placement of the Arab/Muslim-Jewish/Israeli dispute." I prefer a geographic map and not a political map. --Timeshifter 14:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is what you're looking for: Image:LocationIsrael.png. We customarily use these little locator maps to indicate the global position of a territory; we don't embed them into higher-resolution maps. -- ChrisO 15:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Here is one (Image:Arab Israeli Conflict 6.png) along the lines that Jaakobou wanted. --Timeshifter 16:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a bigger locater map for Israel: Image:LocationIsrael.svg. --Timeshifter 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you're just going to have to accept that as the creator of this particular map I made a number of aesthetic and technical choices regarding its design. I've explained those concerns. I've gone a long way towards meeting your concerns and those of others, but I don't think the issues you raise are worth reopening the whole debate again. Please compromise, accept it as it is, and move on. -- ChrisO 14:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, you wouldn't mind if i'd like to hear opinions of other editors other than you, the "in charge of aestetics" and your tag-team buddy from the previous image (who threatened me for 3RR about removing his disruptive editing on this talk page^[1] *shrug*). right? Jaakobou 16:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is stopping other editors from commenting on this map. Other editors have commented on various versions of this map as the long previous discussion indicates. Most editors seem happy with the map. I am sorry that you want to delete their comments from this talk page, and that you feel it is disruptive to put their comments on this page. I found a global map along the lines you want: Image:Arab Israeli Conflict 6.png. But it would not fit well on this map here. And it would introduce the political element of "Arabs versus Israel." If some wikipedia pages need that political element, then those wikipedia pages can use that global map. --Timeshifter 17:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we add an image of the Middle East on the Israel map?--eternalsleeper

Jaakobou modified a locater map and put it on his version of the main map. See his version of the map on the right side. Click it to see it larger. It introduces some political elements that others previously objected to concerning the main part of the map. --Timeshifter 14:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Timeshifter, please let go of previous talks, images and your personal objections from those talks about those images. Try to stick with the new information. Jaakobou 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your latest concerns. You are still trying to put a political locater map on the main map. The original locater map also had a political element to it that some objected to. So ChrisO removed it from the map. No one can force a map maker to spend their valuable time trying to meet every minor suggestion. ChrisO does not have to find a non-political locater map, modify it to fit on the main map, and go to all that trouble. All just to have a tiny locater map on the main map. We now have a very good WP:NPOV geographic map. Thanks, ChrisO! --Timeshifter 05:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

eternalsleeper, as i've mentioned in the title, file is lacking refrence to the Global Placement of the Arab/Muslim-Jewish/Israeli dispute or just a global placement of any sorts. I think this can be done by placing a proper global location for the dispute. samples of how such images have been introduced have been introduced by users Timeshifter and ChrisO: Image:Arab Israeli Conflict 6.png, similar image can be embeded on the image. Timeshifter, claimed it would make the file size larger but that is hardly the case with such a small addition on a large file. Jaakobou 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we need global placement on the map; most people know where Israel and the Palestinian territories are. I also believe that the subtext of such a map is to show how small Israel is in comparison to the surrounding states, possibly inferring that a desire for more land is not totally unreasonable... Number 57 22:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that adding Image:Arab Israeli Conflict 6.png would be beneficial for our readers. As for the "political element": not having a global map there is surely political (even the UN includes it), and having the current map in every article on the conflict supports the POV that the conflict is about territories (in this regard, read the charter of Hamas). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The map implies nothing. It is a geographic map, not a political map. Have you looked at the current map: Image:Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png? --Timeshifter 06:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at it, and I stand by my words. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "even the UN includes it". The UN global map did not highlight the conflict like your preferred global map does. How does the current main map say that the conflict is about territories? It does not have any political text on it. It is just a geographic map. Your comment does not logically follow. --Timeshifter 08:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I like the small global placement on the first suggestion by timeshifter. --eternalsleeper

[edit] Regional locater maps to place on the main map.

I put the regional map that Humus sapiens likes at the 300-pixel-width size it would be if pasted onto the main map. It is to the right. This is how it would look at full-size on the main map. It wouldn't work. It is too hard to see anything. It would be necessary to zoom in on part of the map, and to crop the outside parts off. Also, it would be necessary to get rid of the green background color, and to change the title of the map. In order to get a non-political, geographic map.

The second regional map to the right might work if it also were zoomed in a little bit more on Israel, the West Bank, etc..

The map below is the same map at 550 pixel width. It could work if the right side were kept, and the left side cropped off. Also, it would help people out if Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia were labeled. The West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights should be in a different color from the surrounding nations.

All of this takes work. People can create and upload more maps. Wikipedia editors can decide which maps to use on various wikipedia pages. No one map will work for all purposes. --Timeshifter 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, ok, you showed how "it wouldn't work" as long as you don't do your own suggestions. I'm assuming now, that you will support a global placement if "it works". Jaakobou 19:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would I not support my own suggestions? I support the creation of many geographic, non-political maps. I hope that many people with better image editing skills than me will create many such maps. I don't think a locater map is essential to the main map in discussion here. It would be nice, but not essential. So if ChrisO does not want to spend the time doing it, I have no problem with that. If someone else wants to create another main map and include a non-political locater map, then that is fine by me, too. Then wikipedia will have more maps to choose from. --Timeshifter 06:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If the relevant part of the above map was used, and the rest removed, and the green coloring eliminated, then that would make a good locater map to paste into various main maps. In other words crop out and remove anything west and south of Egypt. Also remove anything east of Qatar. Then the map would be legible in the 300-pixel-wide spot available for a locater map on the main map. --Timeshifter 06:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, (1) can you clog up the page a little more? (2) I don't think all the countries' names on the map are neccesary for a global placement map. Jaakobou 08:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you continue with your breaches of wikipedia guidelines concerning incivility I may report you to this incident board: WP:ANI. Why don't you want the names of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on the locater map. It looks fine on the above map. --Timeshifter 09:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, (1) if you can make it work, i'm fine with it. (2) I call it as I see it when the actual discussion is hidden due to unnecessary copy-pasting an image posting in full size. Jaakobou 12:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I thought you were telling me to shut up again. :)

Actually, the image is not at full size. I put it just wide enough to be able to read the names of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip. --Timeshifter 13:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map has been copied to commons

User:Liftarn copied the map to wikimedia commons.

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Is-wb-gs-gh_v3.png

I copied the talk page to the commons also:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Is-wb-gs-gh_v3.png

That way the international wikimedia community will see the history of the map, and can contribute to the discussion also. --Timeshifter 09:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

you should add a link from there to here so that the conversation will not be split among the two pages. Jaakobou 10:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Already done before you asked! :)

See the top of the commons talk page. --Timeshifter 10:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Tiberias?

This is really the Sea of Galilee. I don't know why it is named that, as Lake Tiberias is an archaic name. The article on the Sea of Galilee lists two names: Sea of Galilee or Lake Kinnereth. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 11:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, but that's the term used on the original version of the map - see http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf . -- ChrisO (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)