Module talk:Location map/data/Israel

RfC: Change of images in Location map Israel and related templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following templates used to display location maps of the region of Israel (or its occupied territories) named in their title:

• Location map Israel center ta - formerly displayed File:Israel outline center ta.png
• Location map Israel north haifa - formerly displayed File:Israel outline north haifa.png
• Location map Israel northeast - formerly displayed File:Israel outline northeast.png
• Location map Israel haifa - formerly displayed File:Israel outline haifa.png
• Location map Israel Golan - formerly displayed File:Israel outline northeast.png
• Location map Israel negev mt - formerly displayed File:Israel outline negev mt.png
• Location map Israel south wb - formerly displayed File:Israel outline south wb.png
• Location map Israel jezreel - formerly displayed File:Israel outline jezreel.png
• Location map Israel shomron - formerly displayed File:Israel outline shomron.png
• Location map Israel north negev - formerly displayed File:Israel outline north negev.png
• Location map Israel northwest - formerly displayed File:Israel outline northwest.png
• Location map Israel northwest negev - formerly displayed File:Israel outline northwest negev.png
• Location map Israel gaza - formerly displayed File:Israel outline northwest negev.png
• Location map Israel binyamin - formerly displayed File:Israel outline binyamin.png
• Location map Israel ashkelon - formerly displayed File:Israel outline ashkelon.png

All of these maps, along with Location map Israel (which formerly displayed File:Israel location map.svg), have been updated to instead display File:Neutral Israel location map.svg. The reason for these changes was that displaying the Israeli-occupied territories in the fashion that they did was a violation of WP:NPOV. However, these changes now make it impossible to distinguish the Israeli-occupied territories from the surrounding area, and they cause all location maps that formerly displayed a zoomed-in high-detail region to now display a much larger area, compacting the points together. Should these image changes be kept or reverted, or should another option be considered?

Display File:Neutral Israel location map.svg in all

I agree with Huldra, Dlv999, Pluto2012, Sean.Hoyland, BoogaLouie, and others that maps that show East Jerusalem as Israeli are blatantly pushing a fringe point of view and as such can not be displayed on wikipedia. Sepsis II (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I support this map: Neutral Israel location map.svg It shows the accurate boundaries of Israel. The Israeli-occupied territories are not Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Display original images in all

1. Support as proposer. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support until such a time as community consensus to change the long standing maps are made, on a case-by case method, if necessary. It was bad form to change these potentially controversial maps in articles on the sly. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Gross WP:NPOV violation: Maps indicate the Golan Heights as being part of Israel, an international boundary between the Golan Heights and the rest of Syria, they represent East Jerusalem as part of Israel and not part of the West Bank. In short they represent a fringe/nationalist position and do not accurately reflect RS. Dlv999 (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support – The WP:BOLD edits that changed all of the detailed templates listed above from a zoomed view (such as Location map Israel gaza which has since been restored), to instead all use the same File:Neutral Israel location map.svg, at a zoom level showing the entire country, should have been discussed beforehand. The new map imparts much less additional detail to the reader looking at Haifa's location on Location map Israel north haifa for example, than did the old map. I understand the concerns for NPOV, and would support a new set of maps being created through the consensus process, but until new maps have been created for each one (if that is the consensus), the original set of maps should be restored. In fact if such maps could have been made in advance of this change, there would likely have been much less controversy – it was laziness not to have done so. While the one new map may be more politically correct and may be of great importance to Israelis, Palestinians, etc., we need to keep in mind that most readers of the articles likely couldn't give two shits about what colors are/aren't used for any of the occupied territories, if the maps themselves are of much lower quality. Mojoworker (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a bit more important than WP:Pretty. By your argument if I made an even prettier map which showed all of Jerusalem in Palestine you would support its use. Sepsis II (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about it being pretty? As long as you're building a straw man, I'll build one of my own – by your argument, why not just use a map of the entire Earth with a tiny dot where Haifa is? Mojoworker (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Your entire argument was based on being pretty and how would your suggestion be superior to the current map? Sepsis II (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No. That isn't the basis of my argument at all. I'll try to rephrase it concisely in the hope that you can see my point of view: The maps you replaced had much more detail (and imparted much more information to the reader) than the one single map you replaced all the others with. Mojoworker (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's questionable, the new map doesn't have the false detail that EJ is in Israel, but it does have the 1949 Israel-Syria armistice line, but hey who cares if the details are international rejected or if basic details are missing as long as there are more details. Sepsis II (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Oppose Of course we can't use this biased and inaccurate map. And contrary to the claim, this has been discussed before. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Maps that show a fringe view of political geography are not appropriate. Zero^talk 15:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support - The original changes were made without a discussion. Also, calling the position that Eastern Jerusalem is Israeli territory a fringe view is absurd. In addition to being formally annexed by Israel in 1980, the United States Congress has formally recognized Eastern Jerusalem as being de jure Israeli territory since 1995.[1] --PiMaster3 ^talk 19:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious, are you !voting to restore maps that show East Jerusalem as part of the State of Israel in full knowledge that no country, including the United States, agrees with Israel that East Jerusalem is de jure Israeli territory ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Oppose - The purpose of a location map like this is to highlight the country only. Occupied territories are not Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Other options

1. Comment - the map of Sepsis II is a clear violation of NPOV (legitimizing Syrian occupation of the Hula valley and presenting 1949 borders as "current"), so he cannot justify his POV map is much better than another (which he claims is also POV). Sepsis II attempts to change also regional maps is a very bad faith example of POV-pushing with no WP:BRD process, and everyone knows Sepsis II belongs to Arab nationalists. Putting aside, the conduct of Sepsis II, the issue of disputed territories has received a good solution (at least in regard for Golan region) at Module_talk:Location_map/data/Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 15:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You have already started a whole other thread and a thread at the administrator's board to discuss behavioural issues, so bringing it up again here (and making unsupported personal attacks) is plain disruptive (and only reflects badly on you). On the content issue, how to present the occupied Golan Heights on a Syrian map is not analogous to how we should present it on an Israeli map. The GH are Syrian territory under Israeli occupation. The territorial situation with respect to Syria is different to Israel. Dlv999 (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Comment – I think there needs to be a third option: If the old series of maps are viewed as POV, then a new series of maps (corresponding to the one's they have replaced) need to be developed and not simply leave it as things are now – where the entire series of unique maps with detail have been replaced by one single map that is deemed NPOV, but lacks the detail of the maps they replaced. The only remaining example of the status quo ante showing the additional detail is Location map Israel gaza which has been restored. I really don't care about what color is applied to what area of the map, just that the additional detail of the previous map series should be restored. Mojoworker (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree, in fact I asked the creator of the original zoomed in maps if he would modify them per npov over a month ago [2], only after his refusal did I edit these templates. Sepsis II (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This map has been claimed to be POV. The previous map was claimed to be POV. There is a claim that including East Jerusalem would blatantly pushing a fringe point of view. We should review the sources. Reviewing the sources should easily show if that is fringe or not. In some cases (not all) it might be better to make the map show that some of these areas are disputed, that being of course on the basis of what a review of the sources show.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Serialjoepsycho: I fully agree with you. However, Sepsis II insists that even showing the territories as disputed is a gross pro-Israel WP:NPOV violation. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • As for sources, people shouldn't have to spend time pointing out that the sky is blue over and over again. Anyone who doesn't already know that including any of the occupied territories as if they are part of the State of Israel is a violation of mandatory policy shouldn't really be editing in the topic area. Ten years of pointless bickering over how to describe Jerusalem in particular was put to rest (at least for several years) by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. And regarding 'disputed', whatever the solution, the maps aren't going to transform occupied territory into a 'disputed territory'. That isn't going to happen because there's no chance of consensus for that approach given the constraints of policy. If people decide that they want a map that also shows areas under Israeli occupation, perhaps distinguishing between civilian and military administration, we should use a map that does that, colored in a way that distinguishes between Israel and Israeli occupied territories. But the map should label things according to policy rather than the language of Israel MFA and pro-Israel advocacy groups. If the CIA can get the issue of distinguishing between Israel and the Israeli occupied territories on maps right[3], we should be able to do it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
      • No you shouldn't keep saying same thing over and over again. But reviewing the sources may help in this debate. If Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem is at play here then that's a good reason to close further discussion and direct the OP to the arbitration committee. Since the RFC wasn't closed I made that suggestion. A discussion beyond bickering may make someone suggest something like putting a mark on the map to show EJ is defacto Israel. So simply, We should do something to move this conversation forward or shut it down.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Sorry, this proposal is not very well worded, and I can't really understand what point is being made or what question is being asked. The mass of links at the top are very confusing as some appear to have different maps (e.g. Israel negev mt) and some the same (e.g. Israel center ta). Number 57 13:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: Look at the map in the infobox on Neve Dekalim (which uses Location map Israel gaza. Currently, due to a recent change, the map image it uses is File:Neutral Israel location map.svg. I'm asking whether that map should be switched back to what it was before, which is File:Israel outline northwest negev.png. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to edit the hundreds of articles that use these templates and redirect them to this template and post the unused templates to TfD then recreate the templates and edit the hundreds of articles again once the maps currently being worked on are finished you can. If you want to add maps that place East Jerusalem in Israel, you can't. Sepsis II (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does the article need editing? The coding in the infobox says it should be pointed at the "Israel gaza" map. I assume someone has broken the overall coding, and this should be reverted asap. Number 57 17:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: The article doesn't need editing. It was just an example of one of the articles that uses these templates. I did revert it asap, but Sepsis II reinstated it and claims the change was deliberate because showing the occupied territories in any fashion that is different from surrounding countries is a violation of NPOV. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If the article is pointing at the right name for the map, why is not displaying the right map? How has this mess been made? Number 57 17:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: Because Sepsis II changed all of the map templates to display his own map. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, having read some user talk pages, it seems this is all rather untoward. I think major changes like this should have been raised at a WikiProject talk page with a RFC, rather than being done quietly on an article talk page that few people would watch. Until there is a proper consensus (probably here, as there is a proper consultation process now), the original maps should be restored. Number 57 17:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is in extremely bad form to edit the templates while an RfC is open. Also Jackmcbarn, do not place words in my mouth, I have multiple times explicitly stated what I hope the final maps to look like and that is very different from what you claims you make of my wants. Sepsis II (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

And in response I would say it was extremely bad form to make such controversial changes without discussion (especially when you messed up every pushpin map on an Israeli place article for a while) and revert their undoing. Number 57 17:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: I linked here from the WP Israel talk page. If you want to restore them, go ahead, but I don't want to do it myself since I just reverted him once and was reverted back. @Sepsis II: I don't care about the final form right now, but until the final form is done, they should be back the way they were. Also, regarding another revert, it's BRD, not BRRD (which you did). Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Most editors to comment on the subject have stated that the old maps were blatant POV pushing. It is extremely clear there is no consensus to replace the current maps with the old Israeli POV maps. Sepsis II (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please give diffs to back up both of those statements. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My comment would be that it is not an NPOV violation. I could understand this stance if the maps showed the West Bank and Golan Heights in the same colours as Israel, but they do not. Moreover, showing the Golan Heights and the West Bank as being separate countries like Lebanon or Jordan is also an NPOV violation, as it doesn't show the reality that the territories are currently occupied. I think the original maps showed the correct balance required in this situation.

Another question I would ask is why Sepsis II did not simply change the existing maps, rather than replace all of them with a whole-of-Israel one, which is far less helpful in terms of identifying locations? Number 57 17:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: He says he's still working on making those maps, but until then, the maps "violates NPOV,cannot be used on en.wiki". Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: Your change to Location map Israel gaza did indeed fix that one, but there's still a lot more templates (all of them that are listed at the top). Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering the number of editors opposed to the old map for violating one of the most basic rules of wikipedia, the continued "fixing" by Number57 while this discussion continues would be seen in a very poor light by the community. Sepsis II (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"This is blatant pov-pushing." - @Pluto2012: [4]

"I agree with Dlv999 and Sepsis that some of the old maps seem to more reflect the Israeli view, than the view of the rest of the International community." @Huldra: [5]

"You say the maps are nuetral but they give impression that the occupied Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are part of Israel in contradiction to most RS."[6] "it is not appropriate to use an erroneous international border for Israel with regards to East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights." [7] - @Dlv999:

Users @Sean.hoyland: and @Cush: edits at commons are also in line with removing the previous map and replacing it with this current one. Sepsis II (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it should be noted that Sepsis II and some of the above editors edit-warred over File:Israel location map.svg for a while, but their changes weren't with consensus, so Sepsis II uploaded his version to File:Neutral Israel location map.svg, and replaced all uses of the former with the latter. Also, in the agreement statements, the others agreed that the old maps had problems, not that your solution here was called for. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It turns out that Commons, unlike en.wiki, has no NPOV rules. Sepsis II (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed they don't. So why did you state "pushing extremist nationalist ideologies is not acceptable" as your reason for one of your edits to File:Israel location map.svg? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The statement "It turns out" infers that I found out afterwards, if you need further help with reading comprehension let me know. Sepsis II (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on Jackmcbarn's comments above, it would appear that the current situation has been brought about by an effective gaming of the system (i.e. no consensus to change an existing map, so inserting a new one and redirecting everything to that). I think this needs wider attention. Number 57 18:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: Any ideas where else to post this? VPR and/or centralized discussion maybe? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have raised it at WP:ANI and requested attention to the matter. Number 57 18:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of a worse board to have brought the matter to. Sepsis II (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Number57, commons is actually separate from en.wiki. consensus can't change maps and npov does not exist. Sepsis II (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is saying you uploading your own version of the map to Commons was improper. What was improper was replacing all uses of the old map here with yours. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The old map had serious and blatant POV problems and thus had to be removed from en.wiki. I removed the map and replaced it with the best map available at commons one created by Cush. If you believe there is a better map available for use please link to it here. Sepsis II (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It did not have serious and blatant POV problems, as Number 57 just agreed above. Also, when an IP disagreed with your claim, you falsely accused them of vandalism, and of being a sock of a banned editor without any evidence other than that they disagreed with you, when in fact it was a legitimate content dispute. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you finally show your colours, claiming it's npov to place East Jerusalem in Israel and more, though really you should probably go speak to the blocking admin to unblock the account and IP as a "Vandalism-only account" and under wp:ARBPIA. Sepsis II (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying to place East Jerusalem in Israel. I'm saying make the occupied territories clearly distinguishable from both Israel and from the surrounding countries. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Then why are you supporting returning to the old map which by colouring and borders places East Jerusalem within Israel? This isn't adding up, though what do I know, legitimate editors have said that I'm a paranoid racist. Sepsis II (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This map File:Israel outline northwest negev.png is not acceptable. Golan Heights and East-Jerusalem are displayed as belonging to Israel. There is nothing to add. That's even not the usual disputed concern, that is the recognition of the annexion, which is not acceptable. Anybody who would reject this is performing "blatant pov-pushing". This map File:Neutral Israel location map.svg is better. I think the west border of Golan should not be dashed. I also think the color of Gaza and West Bank should be different from the color of Golan because the first two refer to Palestinian occupied territories (that are disputed) and the third refers to Syrian occupied territory. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Agree File:Neutral Israel location map.svg is better. File:Israel outline northwest negev.png is not acceptable. ( randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I flipped between the two maps a few times and haven't yet found the difference. And I can't tell what exactly the proposal or question is. You might want to clarify those things. North8000 (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's a rephrasing of the original question: Sepsis II recently changed about 20 different location maps to all use the same image, File:Neutral Israel location map.svg, in which the occupied territories aren't marked in any way. Should we change them all back to the originals (such as File:Israel location map.svg, which marks the occupied territories, but in a different color than that of Israel), which I have listed above? Jackmcbarn (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Another way of rephrasing that would perhaps be to ask whether a map called "Israel location map" should just be a map of Israel (as defined by the Green Line i.e. this spatial object) or a map of something else ? Back in 2011, I thought it should be the former, just a map of Israel, and made the version at 04:48, 11 January 2011. I still think a map called Israel location map should simply be a map of Israel with standard coloring to distinguish between Israel and not-Israel, just like any other country. If the objective is to have a map that shows Israel as well as the Israeli occupied territories, use a map that is called "Israel and the occupied territories" that looks like location map.svg (or thereabouts, possibly with different colors for the oPt and Golan as Pluto suggested). Which map is used in the articles is another issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I would be okay with Jackmcbarn's version for a map of Israel plus Israeli occupied territory. But this RFC isn't about that, it's about the dozen maps I removed that coloured EJ the same as Tel Aviv, that coloured Gaza differently from the WB, and that had wrong boundary lines. Sepsis II (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Agree that we shouldn't use a map which shows disputed territories as unilaterally part of Israel. Therefore File:Neutral Israel location map.svg is better than File:Israel outline northwest negev.png. The best option would probably be to use a map which coours these territories separately from that of Israel but differently from unassociated territories to indicate their disputed status, as proposed above. Rwenonah (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I think it is fairly obvious that the original maps are not consistent with WP:NPOV: showing occupied territory to be part of Israel against the grain of mainstream RS. I think here it would be more useful to try to agree on a set of neutral maps for these articles rather than keep picking over the bones of how Sepsis II went about making changes to the maps. Dlv999 (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible system gaming

As a result of template:Location map Israel incident, where Sepsis II modified a long-standing version of Israeli map to 1949 borders version without any discussion, I would like to invite all editors for feedback at ANI. Just like another administrator, i raise a possibility of system gaming here, instead of proper discussion as has already been done for example at Module talk:Location map/data/Syria. GreyShark (dibra) 18:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Haha, this is just like when Bibi condemned Abbas for stating how horrible the holocaust was; are you going to argue which map is superior? No, forget the content, concentrate on the editor and how to undo their work. Sepsis II (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As suggested previously you completely fail to understand the conduct of wikipedia. The issue is not which map is best or correct, but how to find proper community consensus without violating wikipedia rules.GreyShark (dibra) 18:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice personal attack, but thanks for clearly stating that you are not interested in finding "which map is best". Sepsis II (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sepsis II: I say with with good faith, you should probably take a step back and try to listen to what the objections to your course of action are, keeping in mind the following: Point: #1): the suitability of one map over the other is a separate issue from #2): the way you unilaterally made a controversial change. (I don't use the phrase "potentially controversial" as anyone familiar with the Middle East articles know: everything is controversial—That is why I usually don't answer the neutral third party requests for comment regarding the Middle East, Israel, or Palestine; but ::sigh:: hear I am.)

The first point should've been raised and discussed with the community at large before any changes (if consensus bears it out) were made. Then things can be discussed rationally, without all the emotion, about whether the change should come about.

The second point, that which has seemed to open a pandora's box of contention, drama, and assumptions of bad faith, is you Boldly skipping the community discussion part (which, by the way, is allowed), but then taking the blow-back of your actions personally, with apparent assumptions of bad faith editing by others on your part (which is not allowed). In all fairness to the article, Wikipedia, and those who have worked on the article for some time, you should consider self-reverting (due to the obvious contention your edit has caused) and let everyone hash out the benefits, features, and details of your new map. There is probably middle ground here, it just has to be worked at a little to be found. That's usually how things get done around here. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I made an edit, as soon as someone can explain why we should be showing EJ inside Israel, I will revert. We should place EJ inside Israel or else a number of anti-Palestinians are going to cause trouble for you is not enough to scare me. Sepsis II (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I see it a bit differently. In WP:ARBPIA it's essential to stay focused on the content rather than the contributors. So for me, the question is whether a revert would restore an unambiguous policy violation. If so, reverting is not an option. An editor can't restore an unambiguous policy violation and if they do they can, in principal, be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. There has to be a policy based justification for action (or inaction) and any consensus also has to be explicitly based on policy. For me, it's primarily about deciding which content complies with policy (more or less) and which unambiguously doesn't and taking it from there. In other words, editors who want to restore the old maps (which do appear to unambiguously violate policy as far as I can tell) need to make policy based arguments for their restoration. They need to argue that the maps are not unambiguous policy violations and can therefore be restored while things are sorted out. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more nuanced than simply a black and white choice between what was there before vs. what's there now. As I said in the above section, my issue with the current status is that the entire series of unique maps with detail have been replaced by one single map that is deemed NPOV, but lacks the detail of the maps they replaced. The only remaining example showing the additional detail is Location map Israel gaza which has been restored. I think that the additional detail of the previous map series should be restored (and the maps edited accordingly to satisfy any NPOV issues). Mojoworker (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you that the desired result here is to produce an WP:NPOV version of the original maps - with all the details as before, but the POV issues resolved. I guess where I differ is that in the meantime I would prefer a less detailed map that complies with NPOV (ie Sepsis version) rather than a more detailed version that is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. The reason for that is that W:NPOV is a core policy that should be inviolable. Any content that contradicts the policy should be removed. On the other hand Wikipedia is a work in progress, while we are obliged that all content conforms to WP:NPOV, it is not expected that all content is finished and perfect immediately. In any case I think we should concentrate on discussing how to make a neutral, detailed version of the maps rather than arguing about side issues.

Does anyone know how we could change the map series so that the occupied Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are not depicted as part of Israel? Does anyone know how we can change the series so that there is not an international border between the occupied Golan Heights and the rest of Syria? Dlv999 (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't global consensus on WP in general that maps should show the de facto situation? Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is presumably based on evidence. What is that evidence ? The location map conventions are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions/Location_maps. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

System gaming

Those taking part in the above discussions should find it interesting that Greyshark has given up on this RFC and is now trying to supercede any consensus here by putting the current map up for speedy deletion over at commons [8]. Sepsis II (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to change shading colour so the occupied territories are more easily distinguishable from Israeli territory

I find that the current shade of the occupied territories is a bit too light to be easily distinguishable from Israel (which is white). Would anyone object to changing the shades to make the different territories easily distinguishable? Dlv999 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I like this idea, and I've tried it before. See the second-to-latest revision at File:Israel location map.svg @NordNordWest: ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jackmcbarn, I am fairly new to Wikicommons, but according to what the reverting editor says here and the linked policy document COM:UPLOADWAR, the next step is to create a new filename with the proposed changes. Then as long as we have a consensus here on Wikipedia we can implement the changes by using the new file in the relevant pages/templates. I would suggest using the name "Israel and the Occupied Territories location map" to address Sepsis concerns below.

That would be acceptable for a map of Israel and Israeli occupied territory, this map however is only suppose to be one of Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Would creating a new file with a name such as "Israel and the Occupied Territories location map" (as described above) resolve your concerns? Dlv999 (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Also I noticed another major problem. If you look at the file usage list for Israel location map.svg, (as far as I can tell) it is only being used for locations within Israel. For Israeli settlements, outside of Israel, there is a second file (Israel outline binyamin.png) being used which includes gross WP:POV violations such as (i) East Jerusalem presented as part of Israel, (ii) the Golan Heights presented as part of Israel (iii) An international boundary between Israeli occupied areas of Syria and the rest of Syria. Dlv999 (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I was pinged: Israel isn't white, it's yellow (in RGB 254/254/233). The occupied territories have a light grey (245/245/245). These colours are the standard colours for the 2008 location map series. If you have problems to distinguish these colours your monitor probably needs to be calibrated. Please consider: these colours have been in use since 2008 and there are no complaints until now. It would be senseless to change any colour just in this map while all other maps use the standard colours. It would be the end of the unified location maps. However, if you disagree please upload a new file for en:WP and do not change this map. All other projects which use this maps seem to be fine with the map. NNW (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi NNW, thanks for the response. The two maps under discussion (currently being used in en:WP) Israel location map.svg and Israel outline binyamin.png do not have the same colour scheme so I don;t really follow your line of argument that we can't change the colours because they all have the same scheme. Could you point me to the other maps in the series outside of Israel? Are there any other examples of maps in the series where there is an ongoing military occupation?

Obviously the situation is not exactly the same, but if you look at the map used to depict the situation in Crimea, colours have been selected that are very clearly and easily identifiable from one another. So there is obviously a precedent for using alternative colour schemes where there is an ongoing occupation/dispute over territory.

Also I don't think it is fair to say that there have been no complaints up till now. The file's discussion page on the Wikicommons shows complaints going right back to 2008. The file itself also shows extensive revisions by multiple editors with one single editor (yourself) repeatedly reverting back to the original version. Dlv999 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Complaints: I forgot Sean.hoyland who had problems with the colours, too, I'm sorry for it. All other complaints had other topics but not that it would be difficult to distinguish between the yellow and the light grey areas. Those complaints cannot be solved with new colours. Almost all other maps of that series follow this name scheme: "Country (in English) location map.svg", for Europe see de:Wikipedia:Kartenwerkstatt/Positionskarten/Europa#Staaten.

Of course I take care for files which were made by me. Of course I reverted uploads which changed the colours or didn't followed the guidelines (not everything that was discussed between French and German cartographers can be seen in 2008 location map conventions file but as the main contributor to that map series I definitely know the rules).

Maps by Ynhockey are not part of the 2008 location map series which was developed by cartographers from de: and fr:WP, they do not follow the 2008 location map conventions (e.g. administrative maps have to be SVG) in style and content (e.g. no names). They show the Israeli sight, I wouldn't use them in de:WP.

File:Crimea crisis map.PNG isn't part of the 2008 location map series, either.

The 2008 location map series is the result of many discussions and is adopted by most projects. The style of these maps won't be change with a discussion here on this talk page. You (i.e. en:WP) may use any colour you like but only in new files, please. User:Dr. Blofeld once started his own series (e.g. File:LocationmapBelize.png) but stopped it. Be aware that updates won't be made in all derivative versions of the original maps because there are only some few people who care about being up-to-date, they have got to do more than enough. NNW (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

What if, instead of a different color, we used stripes, like File:Syria location map3.svg does for the Golan Heights? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I've created File:Israel location map with stripes.svg. A good point was made that occupation alone doesn't merit coloring territory differently, so since Israel doesn't claim the Gaza Strip as part of their territory, I've excluded it. I've striped the rest of the disputed territory. If there are no objections to this image, I'll add it to the template. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is going in the right direction, one problem I see is that Israel has not claimed to have annexed any part of the West ABnk apart from East Jerusalem. In that respect there are three categories of Territory: (1) Israeli territory (2) Territory Israel occupies and claims to have annexed (i.e. East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights) (3) Territory Israel occupies but does not claim to have annexed (i.e. the rest of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Dlv999 (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dlv999: Territory that they don't claim isn't worth showing, in my opinion. I remember somewhere, someone (not sure who) saying that would be like coloring Iraq as part of America since it was occupied. Also, if the chart at the bottom of Israeli occupied territories#Overview is correct, Israel claims Area C of the West Bank, which is most of it (I don't feel like coloring each of the sections of the different areas individually). Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we have two maps, one of only Israel, then another with a legend showing Israel, territory Israel is occupying, and territory Israel is occupying and colonizing. Sepsis II (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

What's the benefit of that? When would it be better to use the first one than the second one? Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, sure maybe a single map would be appropriate, my main issue on this map has always been that Israeli territory and Israeli occupied territory are easily distinguishable. Sepsis II (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well in reply to your comment two posts up, we need to take a coherent approach based on the sources. I don't think you will find an RS that will state that Israel has claimed to have annexed Area C of the West Bank or claims it as its own territory. Personally I would suggest suggest shading all of the occupied territories the same as the vast majority of RS distinguish between Israeli territory and Israeli occupied Territory. In any case hold of implementing the changes for a moment to allow other interested parties to have their say and see if we can get some agreement. Dlv999 (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, the chart I linked to should probably be fixed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed Dlv999 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - my point stands that the best solution to bridge the sides is to show annexed but contested regions (East Jerusalem and Western Golan) as striped, as already agreed in regard to Golan Heights on the map of Syria (see Module talk:Location map/data/Syria) and another similar precedent of Crimea. Gaza Strip may be shown as external, since Israel gave up the claim. The case of Judea and Samaria area (area C) and State of Palestine (areas A, B) is somewhat complicated, but since Israel doesn't contest areas A and B - the whole West Bank shouldn't be pained as striped. Thus, either we paint Judea and Samaria area (area C) as striped or light-grey and areas A, B as non-Israel grey; or we paint all areas A+B+C in light grey or some in-between color to differ from Israel and annexed areas.GreyShark (dibra) 16:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: I've just uploaded a new version of File:Israel location map with stripes.svg. How is it? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it - this is pretty good, but like Dlv999 said - the color of areas A,B,C should differ from Golan Heights and East Jerusalem (striped), since Israel hasn't declared annexation of area C and basically gave up the claim on areas A and B.GreyShark (dibra) 16:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. The SVG doesn't have a separate land area for East Jerusalem and the West Bank, so I have to make it, which will take a while. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

My preference would be to shade all the occupied territories the same colour. The problem with shading territories Israel claims to have annexed in a separate shade is that it gives undue weight to a fringe minority position. According to the vast majority of the worlds governments and sources the territory is occupied. By shading the territory per the Israel position rather than the majority position you giving preference to the minority position of one country over the rest of the world. That is not consistent with our core WP:NPOV policy. Dlv999 (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The way I'm looking at is that there's 3 different sections worth shading: 1) territory that is globally recognized as being part of Israel, 2) territory that Israel claims is part of Israel, but is not globally recognized, and 3) territory that Israel doesn't claim is part of Israel. Is that a reasonable way to look at it? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Most sources tend to differentiate Israeli and non-Israeli and a third non-Israeli territory that is under Israeli occupation. In my view your suggestion is Israelicentric and preferences Israel's minority viewpoint over the majority viewpoint and is therefore not consistent with WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what my original map was? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The original map is the one we have now. This is the map that was in place when this was first brought to my attention on the 25 March 2014. Dlv999 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dlv999: Sorry, I was unclear. I meant the old version of File:Israel location map with stripes.svg. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree, because you have three different shades for non-Israeli territory occupied by Israel. Gaza is block shaded and the Golan and the West Bank have different shading patterns. Dlv999 (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant the version where Golan and the West Bank look the same. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dlv999 that we shouldn't use different colors to present a view held by one country against the rest of the world. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM: How do you propose the map be shaded? Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

All the occupied territories should have same shading. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM: Is this version good then? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No, as it's flawed as Dlv999 pointed out. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM: Would you like it if the Gaza Strip were the same as the West Bank and Golan Heights? If not, what do you want? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new version at File:Israel location map with stripes.svg. If there's no further objections, I'll update the templates to use this version. @IRISZOOM: @Dlv999: ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the lack of further objections, I've replaced the image. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Any chance you could update the zoomed-in maps too? Cheers, Number 57 16:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57:  Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Er, you don't seem to have done it. For instance, Location map Israel negev mt still uses the full-size national map rather than the zoomed image used previously. I meant that these maps needed updating. Number 57 21:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you just meant update the non-striped full map to the striped full map on the templates that are supposed to be zoomed in. The zoomed maps are PNGs, not SVGs, so they're harder to edit, especially since I don't have the source file. @Ynhockey: As the author of these maps, can you change the yellow regions to be striped white/gray? (Or can you upload the PSD/XCF/whatever source format you used to somewhere so I can do it more easily?) Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I have time to do this on a short notice myself, but I can send you the files in CDR (CorelDraw sometimes screws up the SVG), is that OK? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ynhockey: That should work. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: It appears that you don't have email enabled. How can you receive the files? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ynhockey: I do have email enabled. Maybe your email address isn't confirmed or something. Anyway, just upload a zip of them to some hosting provider and post a link here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ynhockey: I'm having difficulty with the CDR format. Can you save them as SVG from CorelDraw and upload those? They'd probably be better off than what I'm getting, even if they're a bit buggy. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Sorry for the late response. Anyway i have a problem with some of the striping: while it is fine for the Golan (per Module talk:Location map/data/Syria), we certainly shouldn't stripe Gaza (it should be shown as external since Israel doesn't control it and doesn't claim it). In addition, there should be some difference in striping of West Bank and of Golan - while just 50-60% of West Bank is controlled by Israel (disputed), the Golan is fully annexed (disputed, but differently).GreyShark (dibra) 18:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you on Gaza, but enough others above didn't that I relented. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to change shading colour so the occupied territories are more easily distinguishable from Israeli territory, Part II,

Please change this back, (Sorry for being late to the show; I did´t have this page watch-listed) I don´t see that the earlier vote supported this version. Now, being "striped", in one of the same colours which is used for Israel, makes it look half-Israeli. Which it is not, according to international opinion. This sends off the wrong signal. Huldra (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Huldra: Rather than making a step backwards, can you propose two new color codes to use for the striping? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

My preferred version is what is today map nr 4 from the top. Huldra (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Huldra: Can you be more specific? I'm not sure which map that is. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: This one, -Huldra (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Huldra: That is the one currently in use. Can you post a direct link to the image you want? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: No, the one currently used (see e.g. Zemer, that is where I discovered it) has the occupied territories coloured (striped ) with what (half) is the same colour as Israel. Number 4 has the occupied territories in the same colour as the other Arab countries. I could also agree to a different colour on the occupied territories, but not one which makes it "half Israeli" (as present.) Huldra (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Huldra: I'm asking you to suggest a color (or colors, if you want to keep the stripes) that you would be okay with. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Any color, really, just not the yellow that is the colour for Israel presently. My first preference is that the West Bank, Golan & Gaza had the same colour as the other countries around Israel. Huldra (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

After all, this is used for places inside Israels 1948 borders, there are different templates for the places in the occupied territories. Huldra (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Huldra: Would you be okay with [9]? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Better, but the problem is that A: I have seen no good argument for having West Bank/Gaza/Golan in a different colour for an info-box on inside-1948-Israeli-border places, And B: this really should not be agreed among some editors pinging one another. This should go up for a vote, after notices are placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration,+ the Israeli and Palestinian projects. My first suggestion is the one I made above: the 4th picture from the top on "this" page should go into the "pure" Israeli info-box. The second colour is "noise". 20:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Huldra, there was an RFC some time ago - see the top of this page. Plus, of course, you should know that voting is not the done thing. The argument for the Palestinian territories and the Golan being a third colour is that they are currently occupied/annexed. It would be an NPOV violation to have them the same colour as Israel, but also an NPOV violation to have them the same colour as surrounding countries - they do not have the same status as Jordan/Lebanon/Egypt. Number 57 21:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

So? this is the info-box for Israeli places, inside the green line. This image is the most neutral that I can find, i.e. it reflect the international communities view. Huldra (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is also used for settlements in the Golan and West Bank (e.g. Ein Zivan). And yes, the international view is that Israel should not be occupying the territory in question, but the reality is that it does, and we need to reflect reality, not the idealistic view. See, for example, the map now used on the Russia example, which highlights occupied Crimea in a third colour. Number 57 22:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I didn´t know that. It is obviously wrong to do so. Huldra (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The case of Crimea is practically identical to the case of Golan Heights and East Jerusalem (annexed with no international recognition), however there are differences with the West Bank and Gaza - i think Gaza and areas A+B in the West Bank should be shown as external, while area C as contested but different than Golan and E. Jerusalem (area C is not annexed, but controlled).GreyShark (dibra) 18:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: That was my original idea, but others didn't like it; see the previous section. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not think it is correct to use the same info-box inside 1948-borders and outside. One part is internationally recognised, another not. And the fact that it is wrongly used, is no argument for its continued use. In any case: this is something that should go for a wider vote, i.e. it should be announced on the Israel-Palestine Project board, at least. Huldra (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Categorization

This module is uncategorized. Please add this module to Category:Israel location map templates by adding [[Category:Israel location map templates| ]] (note the space as the sorting key) to Module:Location map/data/Israel/doc. DmitTrix (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: {{edit template-protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. Cabayi (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cabayi: The doc subpage is protected, too. Could you please either un-protect it, or apply the suggested change? Thanks! DmitTrix (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: (pinging you as you were the one who protected the doc) what do you think about unprotecting the doc page or at least lowering it to semi? It never got any vandalism, and unlike the module itself, it's not highly transcluded.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done, and I'm also adding a request at RUP. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

We should probably wait for HJ Mitchell to respond first before listing it there, on second thought. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This would have been an RfPP request when modules were first introduced but I'm happy to unprotect it if it's not necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)