![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
I propose adding a de facto map of Israel in the lead, along with the currently used 1949–1967 map.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
17:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
That's inconsistent with the articles on other countries. De facto-controlled territories are usually in light-green.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
18:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
*Support Israel reportedly has
world's third biggest nuclear arsenal, so it can never be forced militarily. The second longest-serving Prime Minister in Israel's history,
Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as many others, have said that Golan Heights will remain part of Israel forever.
[1] Also many Israeli ministers and politicians, as well as David Friedman, Donald Trump's ambassador to Israel, have greenlighted and expressed desire to annex the West Bank.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Moreover, Israeli President
Reuven Rivlin said Israel should annex all the occupied land it claims sovereignty over, including West Bank, and grant full citizenship to those falling under its extended jurisdiction
[6]
[7] Israel already is speeding up annexation of most of the West Bank.
[8] Israeli lawmakers are already writing bills to annex West Bank.
[9] Back in June 2017, two Israeli ministers have discovered a loophole to apply the bulk of new Israeli laws to Area C of the West Bank without formally annexing the region to sovereign Israel.
[10]. So it is almost guaranteed that Israel's borders will remain as is, unless it expands more into Syria due to the never-ending insurgency there.--
Pailsdell (
talk)
06:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The Golan Heights are not in Israel, the West Bank is not in Israel. Showing that Israel occupies these territories is appropriate, showing they are a part of Israel is a gross violation of NPOV. nableezy - 18:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
My proposal seems to have majority support, so I made a map showing the entities requested above.
De facto map of Israel, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
17:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I've now illustrated Jerusalem (West/East) more clearly, spelled out the Golan Heights on the map, and added a note about Israel's internationally recognized borders to the image.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
00:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
That map can not be in the article as it claims Golan heights and East Jerusalem is part of Israel, which it isn't. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 00:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@
Icewhiz: It's a de facto map, so there needs to be one color for de facto Israel. I clearly wrote on the map which areas are recognized and not.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
06:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how "De facto map of Israel" could be considered a POV title in any way. I think a different caption is fairly appropriate, to illustrate that Area C is controlled, but not annexed, by Israel.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
16:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The proposal to add a de facto map in sensible. Unfortunately, the arguments against it, loud as they may be, are contrary to current practice. Several users have argued against using the argument that Israeli control of Golan and East Jerusalem is not recognized. With all due respect, that argument is moot. WP practice is to show the de facto situation, not the de jure situation.
So WP practice is clear, and users arguing against changing the map by referring to WP policies are - to put it simply - wrong. Is there an argument to treat Israel differently than the above examples? No such argument has been made. If none is made, the map should be changed, using light green for Golan and East Jerusalem. Jeppiz ( talk) 00:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I made Israel's internationally recognized borders orange, so it's extra clear now. But I don't want change any more colors as it might be too confusing for the average reader.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
17:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
That would be an incorrect title as Israel doesn't have any territorial claims, because the Knesset hasn't decided the definitive future of the Israeli-controlled territories. There is the state of Israel ('49–'67 borders + annexed E. Jer. & Golan) and the Israeli-controlled, but not annexed (Area C of the West Bank).
The reason I've made PA the same colour as the other neighbours is because
this is a de facto map of Israel, not Israel and PA.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
17:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Occupied => Controlled
(If occupied, also controlled. If controlled, not nessecarily also occupied.) See
Logical equivalence.
Therefore, controlled is a more fitting and neutral term than occupied.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
17:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
No, because the map doesn't highlight the PA. It focuses on Israeli sovereign territories only. It's not a map of Gaza just because Gaza happens to be in the map. By that logic, the name would have to be "Map of Israel, West Bank, and Gaza, and parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt".
I can accept "Map of Israeli-controlled territories", even though i would favor "De facto map of Israel", because that's what de facto means.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
19:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about the map you linked, but now it has changed colors for Israel's internationally recognized borders. Maybe the update was delayed, but if you click on the link now, the newest version should appear.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
09:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
And NATO keeps operating in Norway. That doesn't mean the country is occupied/controlled/belongs to the United States.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
22:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I would use the title "Israel and Israeli controlled territories". The West Bank and Gaza are not necessarily claimed by Israel, but are still controlled. PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 07:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
That's just a longer way of saying "de facto". But if you really want to change it, isn't just "Israeli-controlled territories" better? Because where do you draw the line between "Israel" and "Israeli controlled"? Also, Gaza isn't really controlled, but rather blockaded by Israel and Egypt.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
07:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
How about "De facto territorial control in Israel and surrounding areas"? That's about as factual and neutral as it gets...
Also, Merry Christmas!
Dank Chicken (
talk)
19:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
One idea for a map is to use both de facto and de jure claims on territory. The result would be similar to the map Dank Chicken and other users proposed. For color codes, I would use one color for pre-1967 Israel, which the world recognizes as Israeli territory and where Israel has civil jurisdiction. A second color is needed for East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which Israel has annexed and is under Israeli civil law, but which has largely not been internationally recognized as part of Israel. A third color should be used for the West Bank and Gaza, acknowledging varying degrees of Israeli control in that area, that Israel has not annexed the territory, and that the international community largely regards that territory as part of a future Palestinian state. A fourth color is for neighboring countries. Appropriate, NPOV captions are also necessary. I am undecided on whether Area C should receive its own color or simply be part of the West Bank's color, although I am leaning against it since Israel has not annexed Area C nor has it officially claimed it (correct me if I am wrong on whether Israel claims it). The main reason to include a separate color would be to demonstrate Israeli control over that area, but that issue may be too specific to be in a lead image. Regardless, the areas should definitely be included as a map in the body of the article, where they are not currently included. Overall, these color codes do the best job of illustrating both Israel's de facto and de jure claims on territory. PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 20:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
This entire conversation is predicated on a assertion without any backing, that there should be a map in an encyclopedia article on Israel that conflates Israeli territory and Israeli-occupied territory. We have maps that show the territory that Israel controls, and they do it in a NPOV way by showing that there is not simply a blob called "de facto Israel". We already have a map that includes all of this material, and it already is in the article, this map in the section Israeli-occupied territories. Including a map of the occupied territories that does not specify that those territories are occupied is a violation of NPOV, and it cant be used in the article. You want to move this map up to the lead sure, but for some reason Im guessing the Greater Israel backers here wont want to do that. nableezy - 03:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Since the adding of a de facto map of Israel (named Israeli-controlled territories) to the lead was supported almost unanimously, but the coloring and phrasings were disputed, I've now made a
NEW MAP. The annexed East Jerusalem and Golan Heights now have their own color, and I've also marked the "Green Line" and which areas are and aren't internationally recognized as Israeli. Now that I've double-checked the whole discussion above, the inclusion of such a map in the lead of this article is supported by me, Icewhiz, Sokuya, Moxy, Pailsdell, WarKosign, ɱ, Jeppiz and PointsofNoReturn. It's only opposed by SupremeDeliciousness, MShabazz and nablezzy.
So far, NINE (9) editors are in favour and THREE (3) are against.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
11:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't be preposterous. I clearly wrote internationally recognized for the dark blue and annexed for the light blue areas. That is strictly factual. If an area is occupied, then military law is applied, not civil law. Nobody would seriously consider
Crimea occupied; because it's annexed. Same goes for East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
18:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The Palestinian Authority of the West Bank is Israeli-occupied, along with area C, whereas the Gaza Strip is not. I just think that's an important distinction to make. I also clarified the PA borders on WB & Gaza.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
12:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I have a few thoughts and questions about the language in the captions and key. These questions are not intended solely for Dank Chicken, but for all editors:
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you,
Malik Shabazz, for appreciating my map and sharing your concerns!
I only have objections for two of your proposals:
In your opinion, what excactly should the language in the captions and key be?
Dank Chicken (
talk)
22:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The map is only supposed to illustrate Israel. If I were to give the PA its own colour, I'd have to give all of the neighbouring countries separate colours. Pre-1967 is a little dubious. That could refer to kingdoms of Israel and Judah during the Iron Age, or the Hasmonean dynasty during the 1st century BCE. I would have to change the name to "1949–1967 Israel" but if I remove that the dark blue is internationally recognized, I'd have to write on all other areas that they aren't, and that would make the legend so much longer. I'd appreciate if you could propose a final text, and then I'll compare it to mine and Malik Shabazz's.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
08:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
This is factual - leaving all quibbling over other explaining text to outside the image. On the "West Bank" map caption, ditch "also know as the....". Icewhiz ( talk) 10:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Israel's 1949–1967 borders are marked in green on the map and written in the legend. The map also states that all of the West Bank is occupied by Israel. The borders of the PA are also marked on the map and explanied in the legend. What I can do is remove the rest of the text, if deemed to be excessive.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
11:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@
Icewhiz:, I've changed it to match your proposal, with small detail changes. See
#Add this map?
Dank Chicken (
talk)
14:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
My question goes as following:
Should this map be added to the lead of this article?
Also, feel free to come with suggestions if you feel the map and/or its description needs to be improved in any way. Happy new year,
Dank Chicken (
talk)
14:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Dank Chicken: According to common practice and Wikipedia guidelines. Look at other countries' articles. If you mean aligning it to the left it will create MOS:SANDWICHING. It cannot be below infobox either because then it will appear in the History section. And besides that, if there's one map decided to be the best one, there shouldn't be other versions of it. -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 16:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I belive the map is essential to the lead and as it seems, most editors agree with me. Regarding the excact placement, that's just a technical detail that can be fixed by testing different placements though out the lead (inside or outside the infobox).
Dank Chicken (
talk)
18:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Who the fuck is Mariolis MG? I'm sick and tired of being accused of things without any evidence whatsoever other than the fact that we both have blank user pages and we edited the same article once. Wow, how compelling... First SupremeDeliciousness, and now you. Get off my back, god damn it!
Dank Chicken (
talk)
21:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@
Onceinawhile: Civilly speaking, the PA is a neighbouring country, but I agree that it's important to mention all of the West Bank is still Israeli-occupied, which I did on the map. If I was to highlight every single built-up area, the map would become a mess. But all of the settlements are located in area C, and I wrote that Israel maintains military and civil control over that area. I could add NOTE: The final status of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is still to be negotiated. Would you accept the map if I did that, or do you have any further suggestions?
Dank Chicken (
talk)
22:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
SPI case is not closed yet, so striking all of the user's comments was premature. It is most likely that an admin will confirm clerks findings, but due process should be followed. “ WarKosign ” 08:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I see that those who support this map didn't bother to preview it and don't care about the Manual of Style. Even Dank Chicken's idiotic suggestion, in his proposal, to add this as a third map to the Infobox did not raise any questions. People are just eager to stuff this article more and more. The size of this page is already one of the largest among other countries, with one of the longest leads – let's make the Infobox the longest! The Infobox already overlaps the Etymology section. With this amateur monstrosity as a map, it will go down to the History section, messing up the images. And if the image in the Etymology is aligned to the left, it will cause MOS:SANDWICHING. Also, the legend in this map would be unreadable, and the huge caption below it has no place in the Infobox. The only legitimate questions are whether the current UN map in the Infobox should stay or go, and whether this map should replace the map in Israel#Israeli-occupied territories or not. -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 17:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The current maps in the infobox are utterly useless, i cant see a thing on them, they are so small and unclear. the map shown above looks so much better. even if people disagree with this map, can the page not have a map similar to this in size and style, so its easier for people to see and more informative? the current map in the infobox is pointless. Yandanta ( talk) 10:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Support. The captions may very well need a little polishing, but the map itself is much better than the one in the article.
Nystart!! (
talk)
00:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
I propose adding a de facto map of Israel in the lead, along with the currently used 1949–1967 map.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
17:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
That's inconsistent with the articles on other countries. De facto-controlled territories are usually in light-green.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
18:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
*Support Israel reportedly has
world's third biggest nuclear arsenal, so it can never be forced militarily. The second longest-serving Prime Minister in Israel's history,
Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as many others, have said that Golan Heights will remain part of Israel forever.
[1] Also many Israeli ministers and politicians, as well as David Friedman, Donald Trump's ambassador to Israel, have greenlighted and expressed desire to annex the West Bank.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Moreover, Israeli President
Reuven Rivlin said Israel should annex all the occupied land it claims sovereignty over, including West Bank, and grant full citizenship to those falling under its extended jurisdiction
[6]
[7] Israel already is speeding up annexation of most of the West Bank.
[8] Israeli lawmakers are already writing bills to annex West Bank.
[9] Back in June 2017, two Israeli ministers have discovered a loophole to apply the bulk of new Israeli laws to Area C of the West Bank without formally annexing the region to sovereign Israel.
[10]. So it is almost guaranteed that Israel's borders will remain as is, unless it expands more into Syria due to the never-ending insurgency there.--
Pailsdell (
talk)
06:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The Golan Heights are not in Israel, the West Bank is not in Israel. Showing that Israel occupies these territories is appropriate, showing they are a part of Israel is a gross violation of NPOV. nableezy - 18:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
My proposal seems to have majority support, so I made a map showing the entities requested above.
De facto map of Israel, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
17:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I've now illustrated Jerusalem (West/East) more clearly, spelled out the Golan Heights on the map, and added a note about Israel's internationally recognized borders to the image.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
00:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
That map can not be in the article as it claims Golan heights and East Jerusalem is part of Israel, which it isn't. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 00:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@
Icewhiz: It's a de facto map, so there needs to be one color for de facto Israel. I clearly wrote on the map which areas are recognized and not.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
06:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how "De facto map of Israel" could be considered a POV title in any way. I think a different caption is fairly appropriate, to illustrate that Area C is controlled, but not annexed, by Israel.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
16:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The proposal to add a de facto map in sensible. Unfortunately, the arguments against it, loud as they may be, are contrary to current practice. Several users have argued against using the argument that Israeli control of Golan and East Jerusalem is not recognized. With all due respect, that argument is moot. WP practice is to show the de facto situation, not the de jure situation.
So WP practice is clear, and users arguing against changing the map by referring to WP policies are - to put it simply - wrong. Is there an argument to treat Israel differently than the above examples? No such argument has been made. If none is made, the map should be changed, using light green for Golan and East Jerusalem. Jeppiz ( talk) 00:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I made Israel's internationally recognized borders orange, so it's extra clear now. But I don't want change any more colors as it might be too confusing for the average reader.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
17:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
That would be an incorrect title as Israel doesn't have any territorial claims, because the Knesset hasn't decided the definitive future of the Israeli-controlled territories. There is the state of Israel ('49–'67 borders + annexed E. Jer. & Golan) and the Israeli-controlled, but not annexed (Area C of the West Bank).
The reason I've made PA the same colour as the other neighbours is because
this is a de facto map of Israel, not Israel and PA.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
17:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Occupied => Controlled
(If occupied, also controlled. If controlled, not nessecarily also occupied.) See
Logical equivalence.
Therefore, controlled is a more fitting and neutral term than occupied.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
17:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
No, because the map doesn't highlight the PA. It focuses on Israeli sovereign territories only. It's not a map of Gaza just because Gaza happens to be in the map. By that logic, the name would have to be "Map of Israel, West Bank, and Gaza, and parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt".
I can accept "Map of Israeli-controlled territories", even though i would favor "De facto map of Israel", because that's what de facto means.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
19:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about the map you linked, but now it has changed colors for Israel's internationally recognized borders. Maybe the update was delayed, but if you click on the link now, the newest version should appear.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
09:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
And NATO keeps operating in Norway. That doesn't mean the country is occupied/controlled/belongs to the United States.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
22:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I would use the title "Israel and Israeli controlled territories". The West Bank and Gaza are not necessarily claimed by Israel, but are still controlled. PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 07:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
That's just a longer way of saying "de facto". But if you really want to change it, isn't just "Israeli-controlled territories" better? Because where do you draw the line between "Israel" and "Israeli controlled"? Also, Gaza isn't really controlled, but rather blockaded by Israel and Egypt.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
07:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
How about "De facto territorial control in Israel and surrounding areas"? That's about as factual and neutral as it gets...
Also, Merry Christmas!
Dank Chicken (
talk)
19:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
One idea for a map is to use both de facto and de jure claims on territory. The result would be similar to the map Dank Chicken and other users proposed. For color codes, I would use one color for pre-1967 Israel, which the world recognizes as Israeli territory and where Israel has civil jurisdiction. A second color is needed for East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which Israel has annexed and is under Israeli civil law, but which has largely not been internationally recognized as part of Israel. A third color should be used for the West Bank and Gaza, acknowledging varying degrees of Israeli control in that area, that Israel has not annexed the territory, and that the international community largely regards that territory as part of a future Palestinian state. A fourth color is for neighboring countries. Appropriate, NPOV captions are also necessary. I am undecided on whether Area C should receive its own color or simply be part of the West Bank's color, although I am leaning against it since Israel has not annexed Area C nor has it officially claimed it (correct me if I am wrong on whether Israel claims it). The main reason to include a separate color would be to demonstrate Israeli control over that area, but that issue may be too specific to be in a lead image. Regardless, the areas should definitely be included as a map in the body of the article, where they are not currently included. Overall, these color codes do the best job of illustrating both Israel's de facto and de jure claims on territory. PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 20:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
This entire conversation is predicated on a assertion without any backing, that there should be a map in an encyclopedia article on Israel that conflates Israeli territory and Israeli-occupied territory. We have maps that show the territory that Israel controls, and they do it in a NPOV way by showing that there is not simply a blob called "de facto Israel". We already have a map that includes all of this material, and it already is in the article, this map in the section Israeli-occupied territories. Including a map of the occupied territories that does not specify that those territories are occupied is a violation of NPOV, and it cant be used in the article. You want to move this map up to the lead sure, but for some reason Im guessing the Greater Israel backers here wont want to do that. nableezy - 03:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Since the adding of a de facto map of Israel (named Israeli-controlled territories) to the lead was supported almost unanimously, but the coloring and phrasings were disputed, I've now made a
NEW MAP. The annexed East Jerusalem and Golan Heights now have their own color, and I've also marked the "Green Line" and which areas are and aren't internationally recognized as Israeli. Now that I've double-checked the whole discussion above, the inclusion of such a map in the lead of this article is supported by me, Icewhiz, Sokuya, Moxy, Pailsdell, WarKosign, ɱ, Jeppiz and PointsofNoReturn. It's only opposed by SupremeDeliciousness, MShabazz and nablezzy.
So far, NINE (9) editors are in favour and THREE (3) are against.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
11:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't be preposterous. I clearly wrote internationally recognized for the dark blue and annexed for the light blue areas. That is strictly factual. If an area is occupied, then military law is applied, not civil law. Nobody would seriously consider
Crimea occupied; because it's annexed. Same goes for East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
18:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The Palestinian Authority of the West Bank is Israeli-occupied, along with area C, whereas the Gaza Strip is not. I just think that's an important distinction to make. I also clarified the PA borders on WB & Gaza.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
12:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I have a few thoughts and questions about the language in the captions and key. These questions are not intended solely for Dank Chicken, but for all editors:
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you,
Malik Shabazz, for appreciating my map and sharing your concerns!
I only have objections for two of your proposals:
In your opinion, what excactly should the language in the captions and key be?
Dank Chicken (
talk)
22:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The map is only supposed to illustrate Israel. If I were to give the PA its own colour, I'd have to give all of the neighbouring countries separate colours. Pre-1967 is a little dubious. That could refer to kingdoms of Israel and Judah during the Iron Age, or the Hasmonean dynasty during the 1st century BCE. I would have to change the name to "1949–1967 Israel" but if I remove that the dark blue is internationally recognized, I'd have to write on all other areas that they aren't, and that would make the legend so much longer. I'd appreciate if you could propose a final text, and then I'll compare it to mine and Malik Shabazz's.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
08:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
This is factual - leaving all quibbling over other explaining text to outside the image. On the "West Bank" map caption, ditch "also know as the....". Icewhiz ( talk) 10:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Israel's 1949–1967 borders are marked in green on the map and written in the legend. The map also states that all of the West Bank is occupied by Israel. The borders of the PA are also marked on the map and explanied in the legend. What I can do is remove the rest of the text, if deemed to be excessive.
Dank Chicken (
talk)
11:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@
Icewhiz:, I've changed it to match your proposal, with small detail changes. See
#Add this map?
Dank Chicken (
talk)
14:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
My question goes as following:
Should this map be added to the lead of this article?
Also, feel free to come with suggestions if you feel the map and/or its description needs to be improved in any way. Happy new year,
Dank Chicken (
talk)
14:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Dank Chicken: According to common practice and Wikipedia guidelines. Look at other countries' articles. If you mean aligning it to the left it will create MOS:SANDWICHING. It cannot be below infobox either because then it will appear in the History section. And besides that, if there's one map decided to be the best one, there shouldn't be other versions of it. -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 16:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I belive the map is essential to the lead and as it seems, most editors agree with me. Regarding the excact placement, that's just a technical detail that can be fixed by testing different placements though out the lead (inside or outside the infobox).
Dank Chicken (
talk)
18:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Who the fuck is Mariolis MG? I'm sick and tired of being accused of things without any evidence whatsoever other than the fact that we both have blank user pages and we edited the same article once. Wow, how compelling... First SupremeDeliciousness, and now you. Get off my back, god damn it!
Dank Chicken (
talk)
21:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@
Onceinawhile: Civilly speaking, the PA is a neighbouring country, but I agree that it's important to mention all of the West Bank is still Israeli-occupied, which I did on the map. If I was to highlight every single built-up area, the map would become a mess. But all of the settlements are located in area C, and I wrote that Israel maintains military and civil control over that area. I could add NOTE: The final status of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is still to be negotiated. Would you accept the map if I did that, or do you have any further suggestions?
Dank Chicken (
talk)
22:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
SPI case is not closed yet, so striking all of the user's comments was premature. It is most likely that an admin will confirm clerks findings, but due process should be followed. “ WarKosign ” 08:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I see that those who support this map didn't bother to preview it and don't care about the Manual of Style. Even Dank Chicken's idiotic suggestion, in his proposal, to add this as a third map to the Infobox did not raise any questions. People are just eager to stuff this article more and more. The size of this page is already one of the largest among other countries, with one of the longest leads – let's make the Infobox the longest! The Infobox already overlaps the Etymology section. With this amateur monstrosity as a map, it will go down to the History section, messing up the images. And if the image in the Etymology is aligned to the left, it will cause MOS:SANDWICHING. Also, the legend in this map would be unreadable, and the huge caption below it has no place in the Infobox. The only legitimate questions are whether the current UN map in the Infobox should stay or go, and whether this map should replace the map in Israel#Israeli-occupied territories or not. -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 17:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The current maps in the infobox are utterly useless, i cant see a thing on them, they are so small and unclear. the map shown above looks so much better. even if people disagree with this map, can the page not have a map similar to this in size and style, so its easier for people to see and more informative? the current map in the infobox is pointless. Yandanta ( talk) 10:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Support. The captions may very well need a little polishing, but the map itself is much better than the one in the article.
Nystart!! (
talk)
00:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)