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 5 Colours 6 English wikipedia pages using this map 7 Synthesis proposal 8 Proposed new versions 8.1 Jaakobou Image 8.2 ChrisO Image 9 Talk from previous versions of the map

[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

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

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 here to Image talk:Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png. --Timeshifter 09:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)