File talk:BlueLine.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

copyright paranoia[edit]

Since I suffer under copyright paranoia I get worried each time I see a map. To avoid discussion of the origin of this map in the future I have followed the weblink while it is fresh.

This map is based on the information in "UNIFIL Deployment September 2007, No. 4144 Rev.18 September 2007"

The Cartographic Section of UNITED NATIONS has released their maps: "UN maps are open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. We request however that you delete the UN name and reference number upon any modification to the map."

edit: There even is a template for UN-maps:template:UN map /Johan Jönsson 10:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My corrections to the map[edit]

I explained most of the corrections I introduced on this page: w:en:Image talk:BlueLine2.jpg, but I'd like to list my resources and some of my explanations here too:

  1. This map from the UN website shows the difference between the IL-SY international border (originally the 1923 border between the British mandate for Palestine and French mandate for the Levant) and the 1949 IL-SY ceasefire line. The 1949 ceasefire line marks the eastmost points where Israel was allowed to deploy its military forces prior to June 1967, but it has nothing to do with civilian administration or sovereignty.
  2. This map from the UN website shows the area where UNIFIL forces are deployed. It covers the whole region south to the Litani River. The line shown in the original version of the map was the boundary of the Israeli self-declared security zone from which the Israeli forces withdrew in 2000, and it is irrelevant to this map.
No, it was the former UNIFIL deployment boundary. I have an official UNIFIL map from 2006 that shows it like that. At some point the region was expanded. Zero0000 (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Shabaa Farms area is vaguely defined, however the UN secretary general published a report defining the boundaries of this area for the purpose of solving the problems under the terms of SC resolution 1701. The area defined there is much smaller than shown in the original version of this map (report no. S/2007/641, paragraph 58, 30 Oct 2007).
  2. The purple line on this map is not the UNDOF line. It is the line which marks the geographical limit of the Israeli control in the Golan Heights since mid-1974. UNDOF forces are deployed between this line and another line within the Syrian-controlled territory. Therefore, "1974 IL-SY ceasefire line" is a better description.
  3. Writing "Syria" over the Golan Heights territory is a bit POVized. This territory hasn't been controlled by Syria since June 1967, and both Israel and Syria claim it today. I tried to describe the territory in a more NPOVized way. Drork (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is based off a UN map, which describes the Golan in the way the map does, "Israeli-occupied" and "Syrian territory". You are redrawing borders not in the source. Nableezy (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a UN map. It is a Wikimedia map. It is partially based upon a UN map, in what concerns the pattern of the Blue Line and the deployment of UNIFIL. In all other respects it is a Wikimedia map using Wikimedia NPOV terminology. Drork (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a map showing UN demarcated boundaries. Your own beliefs on the validity of what the entire world says separates Israel from Syria has no bearing on what is used in encyclopedia articles. Nableezy (talk)
Before making hasty remarks, look here [1] and here [2] (click on the tif file icon). These are both UN maps. Drork (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what about those shows that this is Israeli territory? Every map of the Golan shows that as part of Syrian territory. Nableezy (talk)
We have the 1923-border, still recognized by the UN, but currently not practically effective, we have the demilitarized zones that are often attributed to the pre-1967 Syrian territory by mistake. I can assure you this is an error (a common error, but still an error) because we can see with our own eyes the official 1949 maps and documents (links above). If you enlarge the map of the Golan Heights on en-wp you will see that the color of the DMZ is slightly lighter and there is a special remark about them. These zones included several Israeli villages. The most famous of them is Gadot, and I can also mention Ein Gev. There is the 1974 ceasefire line, which Israel regard as its border since 1981. Like it or not, the region is administered as part of Israel. Revising maps won't change this reality. If and when this reality changes, we will update our maps, but we cannot put the horses behind the cart. The fact that Syria claims the territory and has some international support for this claim is mentioned wherever it should be mentioned. Drork (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drork - "which Israel regard as its border" The UNSC doesn't UNSC Res 497 " Like it or not, the region is administered as part of Israel." like it or not, Israel is in breach of the UN Charter ... Talknic (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- Israel hasn't even really annexed the Golan heights; rather it "extended Israeli law" over the Golan. Meanwhile, there is territory occupied by Syria from 1949-1967 which Israel would have very good claims to under international law -- was Syria then in breach of the UN charter? AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Upload under different file names[edit]

I noticed a lot of reverts. I have this on my watchlist because of categorization.

I haven't examined the reasoning behind all the reverts, but I suggest uploading 2 different versions of the map under different file names.

The commons has many maps, and it is up to the editors of articles to decide which maps to use.

People can discuss the pros and cons of a map on a map's talk page. That way users can decide for themselves about the merits of various maps. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no use uploading another version. We already have various maps of the region for various purposes. This map describes the current Israeli-Lebanese situation. There is no need to mark the pre-1967 demilitarized zones between Israel and Syria, because they have little relevance to Lebanon. The former version of the map showed the pre-2000 Israeli self-declared Security Zone as if it were the UNIFIL zone. This is incorrect. Basically, POVized terms like "occupied", "terrorist" and the like should be avoided in illustrative documents that should serve various projects. We are not going to jeopardize an Israeli-Syrian peace deal by writing "controlled" instead of "occupied" and we will better adhere to our own principles by doing so. Drork (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Territories under military control are 'occupied'. Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. “ If it can be shown by a Secondary Source accurately reflecting the Law and relevant documents, there's no reason why 'occupied' cannot be used ... Talknic (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And Syria "occupied" the ten-meter strip along the east of the sea of Galilee from 1949-1967... AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The map is based on the unifil map[edit]

which clearly shows Golan as part of Syria, anything else is original research. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time - this is not a UNIFIL map. It does not reflect the UN position. I can add it to the file page if necessary. Drork (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drork - Yes please. Add it. Readers might be wrongly led to believe it is endorsed by the UN. Even the original says "The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations" [3] ... Talknic (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

There seems to be an edit war between Drork (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and Nableezy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  with 18 reuploads between two of them, most of them in last 2 days. As a result I created file:BlueLine_ver2.jpg with the alternative version of the file (no clue which version is "right" but we have space for both). I blocked both users for 3 days and deleted dozen of reuploads from file history. I would appreciate if knowledgeable users (other than user:Drork and user:Nableezy) document differences between two files. --Jarekt (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why three days? That seems rather a long block, particularly since there was no warning given. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nableezy illegitimately introduced POVized remarks to the map. I tried to produce a new version but had some technical problem. Then I realized the former version is still available, so I reverted to the last appropriate version. My recent upload can be deleted. Drork (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original map said "Syria, (Golan Heights occupied by Israel)", you have no right to upload another version at this location.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Drork (talk · contribs) and Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) have been warned to stop this ongoing edit war. I blocked both for one month and restricted the access to edit this file. Please consider other ways to solve your problems! axpdeHello! 21:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boundaries[edit]

I've just restored a deleted version with different boundaries. As far as I understand it Nableezy now agrees with these boundaries that Drork introduced to the file. However there was no agreement from Nableezy about a label change that Drork made at the same time. Let me know if I have misunderstood either of your opinions. Regarding the label change, since there is no consensus, the label should stay as that of the original uploader (which it is now after my revert). If Drork wants a version with a different label, then he will need to upload it at a different filename (when unblocked). If it is truly less POV, then the Wikipedia's will presumeably adopt it, and if all of them do, then this version will have been superseded. --99of9 (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing. As I said before, I have no personal ambitions in this edit war, I just want to bring it to an end. Regards axpdeHello! 18:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

{{Edit request}} Please replace the headlines by the standard ones == {{int:filedesc}} == resp. == {{int:license-header}} ==. Thereby, also add {{Information}}, repair the date format and other things if necessary. Thanks, --Arnd (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vector version[edit]

{{Edit request}} Please (if necessary create and) link to an svg version of this file. Alternatively, add {{svg|locator map}}.—AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I added {{ConvertToSVG|map}} to the page. Ahmadtalk 22:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SDC[edit]

{{Edit protected}} Please add the following structured data claims to remove it of the corresponding maintenance categories:

Thank you --Schlurcher (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:BlueLine.jpg&oldid=546543547"