Issues with this picture[edit]

Map A. The mandate was for the Jewish people under international law, a sacred trust with the Jewish people Map B. The 67 lines are not borders. Here's the relevant text from the armistice agreement. Article 2 of the agreement "It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm03.asp

Merge[edit]

This page is resembling too much to Template:Palestinian nationalism; it is also not clear what is "territory development" (could be agriculture). I herewith propose its merger back into Palestinian nationalism template.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, good point.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tfd

Per previous merger discussion, this template is now nominated for deletion, see discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 16:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a smaller version?[edit]

It would be nice to have a smaller, less detailed version for use in more articles. Since the first column might be a bit too abstruse, perhaps that could also be cut out. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC🗽 20:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"1916-22 Proposals" belongs here?[edit]

This first box is too confusing and duplicate to the second box which has the final borders of the 1923-48 Mandatory Palestine. I think it should be removed, perhaps put into it's own template - assuming there isn't one already. Hearing no objections, will do so... User:Carolmooredc 15:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Carol, I think it's an equally important box to the others and definitely belongs here - I should have mentioned before, as you did allude to this some time ago.
The point of putting these maps together is to try to tell the story of modern territory of Palestine in pictures. If we leave out the first picture, we leave out the fact that the boundary line of Mandate Palestine itself was agreed and negotiated between the British and the ZO. The first box compares the agreed boundaries of Mandatory Palestine against the original Anglo-French proposal and original ZO proposal. It shows that the borders of Palestine were in effect created out of thin air as a negotiated halfway position between the British and the ZO, and in doing so contextualizes the starting point for the whole story.
Other starting points which could be considered include the pre-WWI boundaries of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (also ofter referred to as Palestine at the time), but to my mind that is less relevant and more problematically the boundaries of the Mutasarrifate moved around a number of times between 1870 and 1917.
I guess it comes down to what you think this template is intended to achieve.
Oncenawhile (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Majorities and ownership, box 2[edit]

Re this diff replacing Jewish-majority land writing in edit summary (these areas show tracts owned by Jews - can we also have a map showing the areas in 1947 owned by local (as opposed to foreign) Arabs?) Is there a source that specifies this, since there's a difference between how many people live in an area and how many own land there.

As for local vs. foreign Arab ownership, I think we need a good source on this since there had been so many complicated issues, especially Ottoman Empire land conquests of indigenously owned land, making original owners pay rent for centuries. And of course communal related land ownership issues. So another good place to get sources before changing things. User:Carolmooredc 15:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's originally from here: File:Jewish_settlements_1947.png, and before that from the CIA 1973 Atlas. I would note that whoever wrote the CIA atlas is clearly extremely biased given the ancient maps they placed at the beginning which seem intended to imply continuity (plus the dates for the Hasmonean map they have shown are totally incorrect).
I'm going to see if I can find where the original data comes from. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, so it would seem the info came from Village statistics 1945. An institution must have taken the detailed land data by village and turned it in to a map. So the remaining question is, which organisation actually produced the map originally, assuming it was not the CIA? Oncenawhile (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm on vacation and in that mode can't properly respond. We'll see if others do in the future. I'll be back. User:Carolmooredc 16:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen this kind of map comparisons before. Any accompanying text should clarify, however, that the maps in juxtaposition don't form an apples-to-apples comparison since the illustrated areas aren't the same, e.g. all of the West Bank is still occupied Palestinian territory even if the Palestinians have been pushed into enclaves within this territory. Similarly, before 1948 the Jewish-owned areas were just that, not areas of a Jewish state. --Dailycare (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The map of land ownership clearly has to show Palestinian Arab land ownership, otherwise it may imply that only Jews owned land, with no Arab land ownership in Mandatory Palestine (which is misleading).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The map is clearly misleading and incorrect. Beside this it seems that its source is questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.178.57.153 (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having looked around for a few more hours, I am now beginning to think that rather than "ownership", this map represents "Jewish controlled zones" at the beginning of the 1947-48 civil war. See the source description in French at File:Zones juives 1dec47 + relief.GIF. Does anyone have access to the English version of that Ilan Pappe book? It may refer to the original primary source there. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copying from Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine:

I have found another similar map with a primary source, albeit 15 years older here (the next page has a similar map from 1944 but refers to a secondary source). The primary source for the 1929 map is the Shaw Report, and the table of contents of the Shaw Report that was kindly sent to me some time ago confirms this (although unfortunately the file does not actually include the images). I wonder whether future commissions included updated versions of the map - perhaps the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the Shaw Report has two such maps. One is called "Jewish Lands and Settlements in Palestine" and the other is "Map of Palestine indicating distribution and size of Jewish Land Holdings". I have them. Zerotalk 09:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for Stein's book, I had looked there but obviously not carefully enough. On pages 209 and 210 there are maps "Registered Land in Jewish Possession, 1930" and "Registered Land in Jewish Possession, 1944". Given that Stein is acknowledged as an expert on the subject, we can use these. At first glance I don't see a source given by Stein, but he refers to the British cadastral surveys that would have had such data. Zerotalk 10:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is now resolved, thanks to excellent work from Zero - see File:Palestine Index to Villages and Settlements, showing Jewish-owned Land 31 March 1945.jpg. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issues with this picture December 2013[edit]

The series of maps is extremely misleading and should be considered as nothing but political propaganda, and has no place on Wikipedia. It shows privately owned land by Jews and not privately owned land by the Arab inhabitants of the British Mandate of Palestine. In the map representing 1948-1967 it shows the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in green, although the land was not under Palestinian sovereignty but under Jordanian and Egyptian one. The transition from this map to the last map makes it seem as if the Palestinians lost sovereignty, but in fact they gained sovereignty - this is the first time that the green areas represent an ACTUAL SOVEREIGNTY by Palestinians (and not a proposal for sovereignty). The map should be completely removed or be replaced by a series of maps clarifying issues of ownership and sovereignty in the land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.120.140.226 (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. Have you ever edited wikipedia before - either with other IPs or with a user account? I feel like I recognize the style of your comment...
Either way, you are reading "sovereignty" into these maps - that is a technical status which is not mentioned and has no need to be used here. The point of these maps is to provide a simple understanding for the layman. Focusing on sovereignty appears to be unnecessarily narrow in scope. It is not clear that the PNA has real sovereignty over Oslo A+B anyway.
Secondly, it is a ridiculous suggestion that the current status of "Palestinian-controlled" land is better than ever, seemingly implying the Palestinians should be grateful to Israel for what they were given at Oslo. That is frankly one of the most extreme-right-wing suggestions on this topic I have ever heard made in a serious tone of voice.
Oncenawhile (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"State lands" in Jewish ownership map

IP 46 made an additional edit stating that the "vast majority" of non-Jewish-owned land was actually state land.

This subchaper "The extent of state land" in State Lands and Rural Development in Mandatory Palestine, 1920-1948 by Warwick Tyler, shows that that statement is false.

As does this map File:Palestine Land ownership by sub-district (1945).jpg used by the UN in 1947.

Anyway, as explained by Tyler, the issue of state lands was constantly disputed, highly political and never properly finalised.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template is confusing because it combines different unrelated (and irrelevant) partition plans, a map with Jewish-owned land, a never implemented third partition plan, and finally two maps showing land in use by Palestinians. Comparing apples and pears is not usefull.
At first glance, the IP above has a point by saying that the second map shows Jewish privately-owned land, but not Arab privately-owned land. This is also comparing apples and pears. The Palestinians had a combination of privately-owned land, collectively-owned land and stateland under Jordanian sovereignty (green color). The dirty big lie is, that Israel denies the former Palestinian use of the land, including by Bedouin. The Palestinian-used land included collectively-owned land and stateland, including uncultivated land we now call nature (reserve). The dirty big lie is also that Israel uses the term stateland to rename the Palestinian land grabbed for Jews-only use.
My advice is to delete this template. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested changes[edit]

Thoughts? --Yair rand (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

second map[edit]

Provincial Autonomy Plan proposed by the Morrison-Grady committee. Proposals for the Future of Palestine (Palestine No. 1 (1947)). Cmd. 7044. His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1947

I removed the second map (supposed Jewish land ownership) for several reasons:

Seems to me this template was created as a COATRACK for that Jewish land purchase map, in an area where NPOV and RS are less strictly enforced. Nice try, but no. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read the talk page comments above, this has been discussed before. The map was used by UNSCOP, forming a key part of their judgement on the partition plan. It is impossible to understand the partition plan without seeing this map. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, did you really mean to ask "where's the 1947 partition plan map"? I suggest you take a closer look. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it has indeed been discussed before, with several editors opposed to the maps, raising concerns similar to the ones No More Mr Nice Guy is raising now. Specifically, the last time around, Greyshark09 wrote "The map of land ownership clearly has to show Palestinian Arab land ownership, otherwise it may imply that only Jews owned land, with no Arab land ownership in Mandatory Palestine (which is misleading).", and IP 195.178.57.153 wrote "The map is clearly misleading and incorrect. ". You just ignored them. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is well sourced, and you need to provide a reason if you want to remove it. "clearly misleading and incorrect" is not a reason without substantiating explanation and evidence. The idea that the map "may imply that only Jews owned land, with no Arab land ownership" is highly unlikely, but if that is really a concern we can add an explanation in the caption.
There are many many many WP:RS which include a version of this map in the explanation of the history of the region. For example, [1] and [2].
Can anyone provide a valid objection? And do you really think it is possible to understand the partition plan without this?
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And why are you deleting the third map as well with no explanation? This is very poor editing behaviour. This template has been used for more than two years in its current form on a number of very high traffic articles. The idea that you have suddenly spotted some major POV oversight is absurd. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you are confused as to who has to produce a reason here. You want to include a map that several editors object to, and they have explained their rationale- it violates WP:NPOV by making an apples-to-oranges comparisons, among other things. You have edit warred this back into the template , claiming it has been discussed before, but I don't see how the previous discussion supports inclusion, quite the opposite. I have no objection to the 3rd map, I'll re-add it if I can figure out how to do this. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Brad Dyer. Nope. You have overlooked the fact that consensus was formed at this thread, which took place after the comments that you refer to above.
You are of course welcome to open a discussion if you would like to overturn the previous discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was a discussion on whether to keep the template or delete it. It was closed as 'keep'. That does not mean that the content of the template are forever frozen in time. When I see this sort of misleading comment, I find it very hard to assume good faith. Let's hope this was one-time slip-up. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it's not frozen in time. But it requires a discussion to change it, since the deletionists in that debate were focused on whether this is the right group of images. I have no problem with you wanting to change it - let's discuss. But you appear to have no respect for two years of consensus, both silent and discussed. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, the WP:ONUS is on whoever wants to include the information.
I would be very interested to know how UNSCOP got their hands on a map that includes the 1949 armistice lines and was produced by the Palestine Arab Refugee Office. What Palestine Arab Refugees you think they were representing in 1947? Please provide your sources for this outlandish claim. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
wp:onus is about verifiability, which is beyond doubt here, per the examples i have already given at [3] and [4].. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My sources are at Village Statistics, 1945. You will see that the underlying survey (dated 31 March 1945 / 1 April 1945, i.e. matching with the date shown on this map) was done by the AAC and used by UNSCOP. Per the above text, User:Zero0000 and I spent some time looking for a free-to-use version of the underlying map. Zero managed to find this one, which is an excellent quality map in terms of its underlying detail. Perhaps the Refugee Office did overlay later armistice lines etc on the map, but the underlying data is unquestionably that produced by the AAC and used by UNSCOP. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind adding the armistice lines to the AAC map and uploading that. Then the provenance will be crystal clear. It has nicer colors too ;). But I'm very strapped for time right now. 09:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Zero0000, if you have just the AAC map as it is that would be great - if you have time to email me the doc I will sort out the uploading etc. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once you find another map, kindly address the NPOV issues before you put it in this template. Namely, the fact only Jewish land purchases are highlighted and the fact that who owned the rest of the land isn't even mentioned. I'm also not clear on why only one specific detail is even relevant to a template ostensibly pertaining to the development of the borders of a country. People can go read the article of the Partition Plan if they want to find out why they did what they did, rather than you just highlighting one aspect you like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's not personalize this please. The maps follow WP:RS. A similar series of maps, including the map that you appear to dislike, was the Chart of the Day in July 2012 in the New Statesman. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and I have added a cast iron source for the map of Jewish land ownership at the top of this thread. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The matter of Jewish land purchase is extremely widespread in RSs and is obviously highly relevant. There is no NPOV problem here. Zerotalk 22:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transjordan

It's not NPOV to highlight only one group. Yes RS talk about it. They also talk about what other groups held at the time, including absentee landlords, government land used in communal fashion, Church posessions, etc, etc. I'm sure you don't need me to remind you. Where are all these?

Also, is showing only the WZO proposal in the first map NPOV? Were there no other proposals? Perhaps one to join with Syria? Didn't Transjordan fall under the Palestine Mandate according to the San Remo conference? Why is that not noted on the map?
There are some other problems with the first map. It uses Tessler for the line of the WZO proposal, which in the North he puts north of Sidon. But the actual proposal, as can be seen here speaks of south of Sidon. Not sure what can be done about that, though. The original text of the proposal says the border with Egypt will be negotiated. Tessler puts it slightly west of Rafah. The map in this template puts it west of El-Arish (despite claiming to rely on Tessler). That's not good. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Yes RS talk about it. They also talk about..." — They don't just talk about it, a fair number display this map or an equivalent one. Having other parties on the map too would be fine, but where is the data? The best we can do is to present what graphical information sources provide for us. Zerotalk 21:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Didn't Transjordan fall under the Palestine Mandate according to the San Remo conference?" — No, the San Remo conference did not attempt to specify boundaries, and the official communiques did not mention Transjordan. Zerotalk 21:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Karsh in Israel, the Hashemites, and the Palestinians: The Fateful Triangle (page 55) or Christopher Sykes in Crossroads to Israel: 1917-1948 (page 43) where he says explicitly that Transjordan came under the Palestine Mandate in San Remo, or at least the parts of it that were part of the Vilayet of Syria and came under Faisal's rule under United Syria (which also doesn't appear in any map in this template, for some reason). He explains how it came about that Transjordan was removed. I'm talking about the Mandate instrument.
Any thoughts on the various imprecisions in the first map? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Talk:Mandatory Palestine/FAQ: Transjordan. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just provided two RS that contradict that FAQ. So per NPOV, both views should be represented. That's a rule.
Care to provide an explanation as to how come the border of the WZO proposal you drew deviates substantially from the source you supposedly used for it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They do not contradict the FAQ. Your sources don't provide anywhere near the detail and are simply not comparable in terms of credibility. It is simply not possible for Transjordan to have been clearly allocated to the British Mandate under San Remo in 1920 if the British Colonial Office was to then write in 1921 that "If they wish to assert their claim to Trans-Jordan and to avoid raising with other Powers the legal status of that area, they can only do so by proceeding upon the assumption that Trans-Jordan forms part of the area covered by the Palestine Mandate. In default of this assumption Trans-Jordan would be left, under article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres, to the disposal of the principal Allied Powers." Oncenawhile (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the first map, it follows Tessler. Your pontificating about whether Tessler is correct is WP:OR. You may or may not have a point, but we are not researchers here on wikipedia. We follow sources. And to your earlier comment on the border with Egypt, you are misreading the template map - the WZO proposal is the dotted line, which is not shown for the WZO proposal along the Egypt border. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, I must have been looking at some other map that put the line to the west of El-Arish.
I hope you were trying to be funny with that comment about the sources. A. You have no idea how much detail the sources I posted provide. B. They are very credible indeed. Sykes is cited all over the place (see [5]) and Karsh is a well known expert in the field. C. Your interpretation of a primary source interests me not one bit. D. There are many more sources that make the same claim eg, here's one by Professor Mutaz M. Qafisheh, Professor of International Law and Legal Clinic. Director, Hebron University. Here's Prof Asher Susser. How about Prof Raphael Israeli here?. Do you want more sources? Just let me know.
It's called WP:NPOV. It's a pillar of this encyclopedia. You can't talk it away with absurd arguments. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In cases like this we look at source quality. The FAQ provides a number of sources which explain in excruciating detail that Transjordan was not part of the mandate at San Remo. Your sources are not equivalent - they all touch on the point in passing and do not provide sources to substantiate their positions. If you really believe the ridiculous line you are trying to hold here (ridiculous in the sense that you are still holding it despite being shown a primary source that proves beyond doubt that it cannot be correct), then you need to find a source that is of an equivalent quality to those shown in the FAQ. And for the avoidance of doubt, we are not comparing the quality of the authors themselves, but the level of detail and sourcing underlying the relevant statements. Please provide quotes. And I suggest you open a thread at Talk:Mandatory Palestine, as that is the best place to try to gain consensus for your theory. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you kindly quote the part of WP:NPOV that supports your ludicrous claim? Particularly of how the quality of a source is determined by its level of detail, and whatever else you're trying to say there. All I see is IDONTLIKEIT.
I have provided no less than 5 reliable sources (per WP:RS - both in terms of publishing and in terms of author) that say Transjordan was part of the Mandate. That's enough to include this information anywhere and everywhere it's relevant. I can easily bring more such sources, as I'm sure you're aware.
So kindly add Transjordan to where your map shows the mandate, otherwise it's an NPOV violation and I will have to remove that map from this template as well. Feel free to note that not all sources say it was part of the mandate. When you're done with that, kindly add the Arab Kingdom of Syria which, at least nominally owned that territory and is at least as relevant, if not more so, than a proposal made by the WZO that was never accepted or implemented. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. This is not the appropriate place talk page to discuss a point that reached consensus long ago at Talk:Mandatory Palestine (also read its archives). If your pitiful sources can change consensus there (you may also need to bring up at WP:RSN to discuss the relative reliability of the sources being brought), then we can change the map here.
On your point re Syria, it doesn't make sense. The point of the first map is to illustrate the period of creation of Modern Palestine. The boundaries of Modern Palestine were negotiated to fulfil the Balfour Declaration and create a Homeland for the Jewish People. The Syrian–Palestinian Congress proposal was that that homeland should not be created. It has nothing to do with the Arab Kingdom of Syria.
Oncenawhile (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My pitiful sources? Good one. I can now substantiate my point from sources you put in the Mandate instrument article but summarized tendentiously.
This is the "Palestinian territory development" template. While you seem to want to focus only one what the Jews did and wanted, that would be an NPOV violation. There were other things going on and they should be mentioned as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This template should focus on what sources say. For the first map, if you read Biger, you will see that the original borders were in effect a negotiated compromise between Britain/France and the early Zionist leadership. So the map shows the earliest known British/French proposal, the earliest known Zionist proposal, and the ultimately agreed final borders. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately that's incorrect. I have already provided you with a source and a map that show that early British proposals included land east of the Jordan. If you read Biger (and I mean every page, not just what's available on google books) you'll see that only the north and northeastern borders were negotiated with the French. The rest the British decided by themselves since they controlled both sides of the proposed lines. The Zionists were not consulted in the final deliberations. Neither on the eastern border or on the border with Egypt. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What exactly is incorrect about my comment of 23:15, 8 June 2015?
In addition to you sidestepping my points, you have misunderstood the following:
(1) Per my comment just added on the other page, your chosen point in time 1919 British position represented less than 3% of Trans-Jordan. Frankly, that level of precision is not going to be legible on these maps, so I cannot understand what you feel so strongly about.
(2) The British absolutely negotiated with the French. The eastern border was not a direct negotiation, but if Britain had not decided to stake their claim to the area in 1920, it may have fallen under the French mandate of Syria. I think we are agreed on this point, albeit we are using different words.
(3) It is not correct to say that the Zionists were not consulted, even in the final deliberations. Herbert Samuel was a key advocate for the ZO, and was involved from his 1915 cabinet memorandum, through to his 1920-25 tenure as High Commissioner. Key British government officials had many other contacts with Zionists. They were thereby aware of the Zionist negotiating positions throughout.
(4) If we are going to make this map useful to a reader, and not overly complicated, it should show how the positions evolved and where they ended up. The existing map shows the first positions, and then the final position, and thereby seems clean, clear and logical. If you have a different way of thinking about this, or think that it implies something misleading about the way the discussions progressed, please explain in detail.
Oncenawhile (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Of course it would be legible, the width from Atlit to the Jordan is around 60km. So 10 would show. But that's not even the point. The point is that your map of the British position is incorrect. I'd go so far as to say that the original British position was that Palestine included roughly the areas east of the Jordan as shown in the PEF survey.
2. OK
3. Of course the British knew the Zionist positions, but at the Cairo conference, where they actually decided the borders, there were no Zionist reps and the Zionists were not consulted.
4. The current map shows neither the first position nor the final position. You're missing both the correct early British position and any Arab position in the first map, and shouldn't the last map show the State of Palestine? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy:
1. The Sykes–Picot Agreement was May 1916. It was an official agreement. If you can show me an official British position from before this date, I will have learnt something new. I wait in anticipation of being proven wrong.
3. Agreed.
4a. The first British position depends on your answer to 1.
4b. The Arabs had no formal position on the borders of Palestine that I am aware of - I believe they proposed keeping it within Syria, in which case there would have been no borders for Palestine. Note, this template is about the borders of Syria, so it would be absurd to include the Syrian borders in here. Your point is not wholly unreasonable though - perhaps a solution is to include reference to the Syrian-Palestinian position in the caption.
4c. The last one already includes the proclaimed borders of the SoP - they are the 1967 borders shown on the map.
Oncenawhile (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Did they actually agree to an international administration in Sykes-Picot? I'll have to look that up. I have to wonder why you arbitrarily pick all kinds of proposals that nobody agrees on for these maps?
4a. I suppose the first "official" British position could be the Hussein-McMahon stuff, no?
4b. Again, Hussein-McMahon or the Syrian Kingdom. Why would it be absurd to show they thought it would be part of a larger state?
4c. That is correct in theory, but it is not pointed out to the reader or is it chronological. The last map should be the current state of affairs, with the whole West Bank in solid green explaining that this is the State of Palestine. Or do you not think it exists? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. To your first question: yes. To your second: huh? I look forward to hearing further once you have done some more reading.
4a. Nope. The M-H discussions did not mention Palestine. That was the reason for the dispute. This might be another good one to add to the caption in half a sentence.
4b. Because this template is about the "Palestinian territory development". If I wanted to show the development of the territory and borders of New Jersey, I wouldn't show a map of the entire United States - that is a different topic altogether.
4c. We should explain this in the caption. The SoP does not have de facto control over anything. Even the PNA areas are not technically controlled by the organs of the SoP government. Showing the whole West Bank green is bizarre. I feel like you are just making ever more absurd suggestions in order to play for time.
Oncenawhile (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Really? With the borders as you drew them? Source please.
4a. I know the M-H didn't mention Palestine, but the Arabs interpreted them as if they did. Seems kinda important, no?
4b. That's not a relevant. Palestine wouldn't have been a state within the Kingdom of Syria.
4c. What does de-facto control have to do with anything? The Zionists had no de-facto control yet you show their proposal. The partition plan shows no de-facto control. This template is ostensibly about the development of the borders of Palestine, yes? Showing the borders of the State of Palestine (have a look at that link if you think showing the whole West Bank in green is bizarre) seems to be required as they are the most up to date borders.
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Ha, I knew you wouldn't bother doing the reading, and would just ask me. Fortunately, I live to please, and am delighted to help. The answer is yes, and the source map (signed by Sykes and Picot) is linked in the source box of the map file itself. As an aside, it ties with Sykes's memo to Herbert Samuel a couple of months before the agreement ("By excluding Hebron and the East of the Jordan there is less to discuss with the Moslems...")
4a. Sure, but we can't draw what doesn't exist. I agree it is relevant and the caption is a sensible solution.
4b. That's not necessarily true. There was talk of allowing Jews special privileges within Palestine, within a Greater Syria, as a middle ground. Either way, the point stands.
4c. We are showing both the areas where the Palestinians actually have some control, and the area they claim (the 1967 borders). You seem to want to hide one of these, which I don't understand.
Oncenawhile (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary break

1. I'll have a look, but in order to show the "development" of "the territory" choosing just this one is arbitrary.
4a. I'll see if I can find a map showing what the Arabs thought MH meant.
4b. What do special privileges for Jews have to do with it? You're ostensibly showing the development of the borders of the territory. That there was a proposal to completely absorb it in another territory seems relevant.
4c. How would adding another map hide anything? I didn't say change this one, if that's what you were thinking.
Look, this template is what you'd call, to use your terminology, a Palestinian PR meme. See this as just one example. Now, this is Wikipedia, not the Palestine Awareness Coalition, and Wikipedia at least attempts to be neutral. So let's make it neutral or remove it completely. That means less focus on only the Jews, adding current relevant information even if it doesn't support your PR meme, etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently this map is from George Antonious' The Arab Awakening: The Story of the Arab National Movement. Could someone verify? Zero? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Choosing the first official British proposal is the opposite of arbitrary (non-arbitrary?)
4a+b. I still don't understand the relevance of these to this discussion. Neither proposed borders for Palestine, so we cannot add it onto the map. Why is the caption not good enough for you - it seems wholly appropriate given the fact pattern?
4c. I am confused - what would your other map look like?
5. Look, this template is not the diagram you linked to - it is much more sophisticated, and is wholly balanced. The diagram you linked to, and others like it, are oversimplifications. Hence the first map here is not a big green map of mandate Palestine like exist elsewhere, implying that the Palestinians lived in those borders since time immemorial, but instead is a balanced picture of how the mandate borders came to be. It's why the population map doesn't show the non-Jewish parts in green, to incorrectly imply that Palestinians owned the remaining 94%. It's why the UN map is dashed, because it was never put into force. It's why the borders of Gaza/Egypt and WB/Jordan are not marked as international boundaries on the 48-67 map. And it's why the captions are as detailed as they are.
My instinct is that you don't like this because you associate it with low quality versions you have seen elsewhere, without considering the vastly more sophisticated and balanced nature of this template. That is why it has survived a TfD and a TfM. We can continue this discussion as long as you like, but sooner or later you will recognize that this is a reasonable interpretation of the modern evolution of the region. You have pointed out a few useful points which can help improve it, which we should work on. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This template is exactly like what I linked to with a few cosmetic changes nobody except you would notice, with one extra map you added that focuses on the Jews, continuing what the Palestinian PR meme was doing. It is not NPOV and is not appropriate for wikipeda in it's current form. I have already explained multiple times what I think you need to add in order to fix the glaring problems here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great - thanks for responding to a thoughtful post with hyperbole and nonsense. You don't even have the decency or courage to answer my points directly - your post is pitiful to read. Let's get back to your specific proposals please. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again with the whining? You were doing so well for a couple of days.
I told you what needs to be done here - stop focusing on the Jews and adhere to NPOV. Add the Arab view on the pre-mandate borders if you want a map with pre-mandate borders. Maybe pick a proposal the British made at an international forum rather than a secret agreement with the French. Add the Arab land holdings if you want a map with land holdings. Add the current borders in a new map if this is supposed to be about borders.
This should not be so difficult to understand. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. You have made four suggestions, the answers to which we have already identified above. For clarity, I will put them below:
(i) Doesn't exist - the Arabs did not propose a formal view of the specific borders of Palestine
(ii) So you now want an arbitrary proposal half way through the negotiations rather than the earliest formal British proposal. That seems bizarre, and requires a logical justification which I have yet to see.
(iii) Doesn't exist - there is a pie chart map that the UN used, but it doesn't give readers the same quality of information regarding the shape of the land distribution, which is much more relevant for the borders
(iv) We already have this, and your idea of splitting the current map into two seems to achieve nothing
Oncenawhile (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(i) I posted a map of what that Arabs thought MH meant.
(ii) No, I want an official proposal made in an international forum rather than a secret agreement between two countries. That you're calling Sykes-Picot a "proposal" is ridiculous.
(iii) Why do we even need this kind of map here? This template is ostensibly about borders, not land holdings. If you want to be able to claim this template is not trying to be that PR meme, perhaps you could explain why this map is necessary.
(iv) We do not have this. The last map currently is, again, inconsistent with the previous maps and the purported aim of this template. The other maps show borders. This one shows "control".
I'm tired of going around in circles with you. You are obviously trying to push a Palestinian PR meme into the encyclopedia, otherwise you wouldn't be so insistent every single map they made needs to be in this template. This is the last time I repeat the same issues I've raised here repeatedly and clearly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(i) Does that map show any borders for Palestine? No, it doesn't. So we are done here.
(ii) I am happy to add the proposals from the Paris Peace Conference. Can you provide a source map please for the British proposal? As explained here, the French starting point in 1919 was the Sykes Picot Agreement (see Itzhak Galnoor (1 February 2012). The Partition of Palestine: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement. SUNY Press. p. 40. ISBN 978-1-4384-0372-4.). Sykes Picot represents the first time Palestine's borders were represented in any official agreement by the British or French, who ultimately decided the borders between themselves. So we are done here.
(iii) For the same reason that WP:RS use it. It gives a reader a sense, better than any words or any other map can, of how an otherwise arbitrary-looking UN border was proposed. To take it a step further, all we are trying to do here is held a reader answer the question "why is today's Palestine where it is". One needs to work backwards: from understanding the Oslo accords, to understand which which one needs to understand 1967, to understand which one needs to understand 1948, to understand which one needs to understand UNGA 181, to understand which one needs to understand the pattern of population / land distribution, to understand which one needs to understand 1916-23 re the original borders. Why remove a link from the chain, when many WP:RS seem to find it useful, and none have ever suggested it to be POV. As mentioned below, without an WP:RS to support your concerns, they cannot be taken seriously.
(iv) See above re the aim of the template. The last map is supposed to show "Palestine" today. That has two aspects - PNA control, and SoP declared. So we try to be helpful and show both.
I hope this is clear and we can now move on. If not, we can take a break until you have the time and inclination to continue the discussion. I hope after a bit of cooling off you will see that your concerns were unfounded, and we can work on some constructive amendments. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(i) I'm sorry, but this is ostensibly a "Palestinian territory development" template. If the territory is absorbed in another one, that's a development. There's no reason not to include that except IDONTLIKEIT.
(ii) I haven't seen a map but I'd look. I've posted other sources above that state that what the French thought Palestine included (ie parts east of the river) after Sykes-Picot doesn't jive with your source. We're far form done here.
(iii) RS use it to explain the Partition Plan. We already have a map of the Partition Plan that includes a link that an interested reader can follow to see why it ended up like it did. The only chain this is a link of is the Palestinian PR meme you're trying to push here.
(iv) You don't show both. SoP is not even mentioned. The borders are dashed which you said above means something.
If you want to take a break, fine. You have addressed none of the concerns, nor do I think you can becuase what you're trying to do here is not inform a reader in a neutral manner (see iii). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(i) Such a map adds nothing more to a reader's understanding than half a sentence stating that something along the lines of the "The Palestinian-Syrian delegation proposed incorporation of the region within Syria" The map itself is speculative, as a map was never prepared to my knowledge, either by the 1919 P-S delegation, or for the M-H correspondence. Given it would show a much broader region to the one that the rest of the maps show, it would greatly detract from the aesthetic of this template, and make the remaining lines almost impossible to read
(ii) I eagerly await your sources. You and I have done this a lot recently, and every time you go and find a source you then have to crawl back and work hard to avoid admitting you were wrong. I enjoy this process very much.
(iii) See below - no reputable scholar shares your paranoia here. Unless you can substantiate your view re POV, it can only be ignored. The link you keep posting to is reporting the work of an advocacy organization, so clearly not RS. Please stop whining about this and go and double check your absurd claim with neutral sources.
(iv) Great. So let's amend the caption. I suggest you WP:BEBOLD, so that we can take this point off our list.
Oncenawhile (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back to the second map

User:No More Mr Nice Guy, I believe the thread above has now resolved all of your concerns regarding the second map. If not, please summarise here any of your remaining concerns. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not by a longshot. The map still does not show any other group and their land holdings, which seems like a serious NPOV violation.
Other problems with this template in general include but are not limited to: the obvious NPOV violation of not noting Arab proposals for this territory and the territory across the Jordan that was considered a part of the Mandate until 1923 (which I am amply sourcing on the Mandate Instrument page, as you know). And maybe some other stuff I don't remember at the moment, and will add later. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please keep your discussion of other maps in a different thread. Let's focus on the second map here please, per the title of the thread. I will open a new thread below for your rantings on San Remo. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the second map, you say this "seems like a serious NPOV violation". Since the above thread shows that numerous WP:RS do exactly this, what are you basing your judgement that it "seems like" NPOV? This sounds like WP:OR to me. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will wait a little longer, but if no response, will reinstate the map. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Other sources' are not subject to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, so the fact that they may put up a POV image is of no relevance to us. Please do not reinstate the map until the issues have been addressed. Brad Dyer (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me, what? The sentence "Other sources' are not subject to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy" doesn't make any sense. Sources are in fact the ONLY thing we use to decide whether something is NPOV. I am not aware of any remaining issues with respect to the map - if you are, please state them clearly. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia has a policy called WP:NPOV, which says views need to be presented in a neutral way, and in relation to their relative popularity. If you find a source, even a RS one that has a pOV image on it, you can;t simply plunk it into a Wikipedia article. The concerns have been explained to you, please address them. If you want, I'll add one more concern that I don't believe has been articulated before: The second map adds a dimension of private ownership, which is different form the other maps , which are about territorial aspirations or sovereignty in international law. It makes about as much sense to use it as it does to include a map that shows a breakdown of demographics of pre-1948 Israel by "favorite song" or "preferred style of beer". Brad Dyer (talk)
Your interpretation (re "private ownership") is pure OR. If it is really POV to show this map, bring a WP:RS that says so.
The question you are avoiding answering is "how do we as wikipedia editors decide if including an image is NPOV?". The answer is that we rely on sources - not just for whether the image is WP:RS, but whether WP:RS use the image in a similar way. Both have been proven above. Do you have any arguments that do not rely solely on your own personal interpretation? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is hardly my interpretation, the maps' legend is clear that what they are showing is ownership by Jews, not by any government entity, hence private. Should you have any doubt, refer to this - [6], which classifies land ownership as "Jews", "Arabs" , or "Public". The way wikipedia editors decide if something is NPOV is by discussing it on the talk page, and reaching consensus. That is what we are doing here,and I don't see any consensus to include this image. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do not decide things out of thin air, or based on WP:OR (which your comment above continues to be). If you think it is POV, surely you can bring a respected scholar who claims the same? As we have established above, this is a commonly used map. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pointing you to sources that clearly say the land ownership was divided between "Jewish (non public)", "Arab (non public) " and "Public" is not OR. It is one of the ways we discuss issues to determine if something is POV. The map is indeed commonly used - - for things like showing Jewish ownership of land in this article - Jewish land purchase in Palestine. it is not POV there, because it directly relates to that article's subject matter. But it IS POV to include it in a template labeled "Palestinian territory development" - as that implies that private land ownership is somehow related to "Palestinian territory". That is a POV. And no, I don't need to find a scholar who says that. You need to convince editors on this page why it is not POV, and address the issues they raise. So far, you have failed Brad Dyer (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason that the map is commonly used by WP:RS in this context is because it explains the shape of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. It is the best available data to illustrate how the concentration of one of the two communities evolved in the region during the mandate period. Are you aware of any better data to show this? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brad Dyer, it has been a week since my question - are you able to respond? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I was away for a while. Reliable source do not use this map "in this context" - they use it to show Jewish Land acquisition in the mandate territory, or, as we do, as a partial explanation for the purposed partition. They do not claim that private land ownership is in any way related to national boundaries, the way you are trying to do. The map is appropriate in Jewish land purchase in Palestine, but not here. Here it is POV pushing. By way of an imperfect analogy, a diagram showing the demographics of the US prison population like this one -
2009. Percent of adult males incarcerated by race and ethnicity.Prison Inmates at Midyear 2009 - Statistical Tables (NCJ 230113). U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. The rates are for adult males, and are from Tables 18 and 19 of the PDF file. Rates per 100,000 were converted to percentages.
is ok in Incarceration in the United States, but would be POV-pushing if someone were to include it in ((Template:Human evolution)) or in a hypothetical Hispanic proclivity to violence article.Brad Dyer (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Brad Dyer, if I was to show you one or two reliable sources who use this map in EXACTLY this context, would that change your view? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, because as I'm sure you know, that's not how we do things here. I have no problem believing that a few lazy journalists picked up this Palestinian propaganda meme, and used it in an article. Similarly, as i am sure you know, there are numerous reliable sources that say that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, or that Katzrin is a city in Israel, but in Wikipdia, we don't say that, because that would be POV, even if a handful (or even numerous) RSs say so. There are POV issues with the one-sided data in that map, which multiple editors have raised, not and in the past. I looks like NMMNG may be ok with the map if you added Arab land ownership to it, but I can tell you I wont, even if you did that. this template is supposedly about 'territory development' - and this map does not discuss territory development at all. it is a map of private land ownership. I have explained this to you several times . To state it once more: You are trying to put a respectable encyclopedic facade on what is essentially a propaganda meme. This will not fly. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe we have established above that any policy-based concerns raised against this second map have been resolved. Are there any remaining concerns that I have missed? For the avoidance of doubt, unless the concerns have some basis in WP:RS, it is not possible to act on them. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have not addressed ANY of the concerns. Namely that it's an NPOV violation to show only what one group held and that it is unclear who held the rest. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am confused - you use the word "any", implying multiple, and then you only mention one concern. And that concern is not based on any WP:RS, and has been undermined above by numerous WP:RS, so it cannot possibly be actioned. Can you please clarify? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is it undermined by other RS exactly? Is there RS that says we must only include Jewish land holdings when presenting maps of land holdings in Palestine? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because we have shown above: that the UN and the Anglo-American commission both used a map exactly like that one (without presenting maps of land holdings in Palestine as you suggest is necessary for balance), that many scholars use the map on its own (again, without presenting maps of land holdings in Palestine as you suggest is necessary for balance), and other WP:RS, such as the New Statesman, use the map in exactly the same context as we do here (again, without presenting maps of land holdings in Palestine as you suggest is necessary for balance)
On the other hand, you have yet to provide a single WP:RS supporting your point that maps of land holdings in Palestine is necessary for balance. Given how widely used this map is, one of the hundreds of I/P scholars should have stated their concerns around this if it was a real issue in scholarship.
So this point does not have a leg to stand on, not even a splinter. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you don't understand how NPOV works. The New Statesman or whoever may focus on whatever they like. They are not bound by Wikipedia's neutrality rules. We on the other hand have to provide the information available. Are you saying this information is not available? All the maps you've ever seen only include Jewish land ownership? Or a better question, why do you want to emphasize only Jewish land ownership? Again, this template is ostensibly about the borders of the territory. There are a lot of things that influenced all the proposals for borders. Why do you insist on focusing only on what the Jews did, in not one but two out of 5 maps? How can you even pretend to claim that's NPOV? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are ignoring the obvious - that you are unable to find any support in WP:RS for your view that this well known map is POV. Why should anyone listen to your point if you cannot support it? Verification is at the heart of everything in wikipedia.
Oncenawhile (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Say what? I need a source saying that map is POV?
It's amply verifiable that Jews were not the only ones who owned land. It's obvious you are focusing only on Jews. It is not NPOV to focus only on one side of an issue. This is not rocket science. It's also obvious this map is only necessary here if you're trying to get this Palestinian PR meme into the encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am going to assume that your continued evasion of my request for a source reflects an acceptance that you cannot find one. If you are right to claim POV, then how do you explain that in over 60 years since the partition plan, no reputable scholar has ever claimed that showing a map of Jewish land purchase in Palestine was POV?
If you continue to evade the request to substantiate your concern, there will be no choice but to ignore you.
Oncenawhile (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you really think you can make up criteria and I'm obliged to conform? That's funny. You have my POLICY based answers. I'm not going to waste any more time going around in circles with you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. I have brought WP:RS to prove that this map in this context is NPOV, thereby fulfilling my responsibilities under WP:ONUS. You disagree with the WP:RS, but cannot provide a single source to substantiate your position. I don't know what encyclopaedia you think you are editing, but in wikipedia, WP:RS is what we write to, not the rantings of random editors. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kindly quote the policy or guideline that says NPOV is based on sources directly criticizing each other. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not, and nice strawman btw. We have WP:RS which are well known for being NPOV, proving that the map in its context is NPOV, in the absence of any WP:RS which suggest otherwise. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say it's a strawman but then repeat your claim about "absence of any WP:RS which suggest otherwise". You just admitted that absence has no significance, so why do you keep repeating it? And what's "WP:RS which are well known for being NPOV"? Could you kindly stick to Wikipedia policy and guidelines and stop making up ridiculous stuff? You have not solved any of the objections here, your assertions notwithstanding.
Barring any new information from you, I'm done here. Do not take my future silence as consent for changes I already objected to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy, thanks for this, now I see the misunderstanding. Let me explain.
At the beginning of this thread you raised three apparently reasonable objections to the map: (1) That "It is based on a map published by "The Palestine Arab Refugee Office"", (2) That "The source says the map is per 1945, the text in the template says 1947.", and (3) that "Showing only Jewish land purchases in a template purporting to show "Modern evolution of Palestine / Israel" is an obvious NPOV violation.". You have accepted your mistake on (1) and (2), now that we have shown that the data actually came from the Survey of Palestine, via information collated by the Jewish Agency. And on (3) we now have a number of WP:RS which use this map, wholly undermining your point. So of your three objections, you are clinging on to just one, which itself has been wholly undermined by WP:RS.
To your point above, there is an important subtlety that you are missing. The NPOV policy states "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources..." Which means that discussions of whether something is or is not NPOV should not be held in a vacuum, but should be based on our analyzing WP:RS. Since you have not done this, you have ignored policy, and your viewpoint is not currently valid.
I find it strange that we are still discussing this. If you are so sure in your conviction, then surely you can find some sources which support your judgement? And if not, then I suggest you consider WP:DEADHORSE. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
False on all counts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy, please explain. If you cannot substatiate your position, I will add the map back in line with the WP:RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you do that without first getting consensus here, it will simply be reverted, as it would be disruptive editing against consensus. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First map and San Remo

NMMNG's concerns re Transjordan are being discussed at Talk:British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). Oncenawhile (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speaking of which, why not include the map that appears in Biger page 172? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately I don't know how to do that. But in order to remain NPOV, it should be in the template. It's at least as important as the Zionist proposal. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have Biger to hand. Which map is it - can you show me another similar version? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy, don't forget about this one. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time gaps missing in the 'evolution of the borders'[edit]

[Moved from User_talk:Oncenawhile#.27Evolution_of_the_Palestinian_Territories.27_maps]

Hi, thanks for noticing and continuing to collaborate on the Evolution of the Palestinian Territories template. You reverted my changes, which ofcourse is fine. (huh, wasn't aware there was a rule blocking new users from editing Palestinian articles)

If you thought my text was biased, you are probably correct, and most certainly welcome to edit it.

However, consider leaving the edited images in, for these reasons:

Are you using the green color to represent what ethnicity happens to live in that area, or are you using it to indicate who has control? In either case, the current maps are historically inaccurate. Comment by ComServant (talk • contribs) 20:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ComServant:, I have moved your comments here. Let's discuss here so others can be involved. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for moving it, I wasn't sure where to post it. Basically I feel there are important gaps of time missing from the image that gives skewed impressions. These time gaps shifted who controls various portions of the land dramatically. ComServant (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi ComServant, thanks for your thoughtful response to my revert. This is the way wikipedia is supposed to work, so that's great. Let me try to answer your various points in turn:
A) I agree with the concept of adding more specificity here
B) That's fair, albeit it's not as simple as that. The West Bank accounted for >50% of Jordan's population, and the West Bank representatives represented exactly half of the Jordanian parliament. In Gaza, for more than half the period, the All-Palestine Government governed the affairs of the territory from Cairo. Importantly, in both the WB and GS during this period, the regions were governed explicitly for the benefit for the local Palestinian population.
C) Again, it's not as simple as you suggest. Both the WB and GS have been governed for the last decade by the Palestinian Authority. They just dispute what constitutes the Palestinian Authority. See for example the list at Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. The unity government you refer to was actually successfully in place for a year. Either way, there has been no formal separation (see Secession) of the two territories, so technically they both remain part of the same unit. Abbas remains President of both.
As to your text in the template itself, a few comments:
D) You wrote: "Borders were acceptable to Israel, but rejected by Jordan and Egypt." => This is incorrect. See 1949 Armistice Agreements
E) You wrote: "After defeating the joint Eygptian-Syrian-Jordian military invasion during the Six-day war, Israel had control over the West Bank from Jordon, the Gaza strip (and the Sinai Peninsula, later returned in exchange for peace) from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria." => Calling it an invasion without mentioning the Israeli airstrikes which began the conflict is unacceptable.
F) You wrote: "Israel handed partial control of significant portions of the West Bank to the Palestinian National Authority, while negotiations continued towards a final peace treaty (which has thus far not been reached)." => "Significant portions" seems to be an overstatement. "Israel handed" suggests that Oslo and Oslo 2 were one-sided agreements in favour of Israel. You might note Palestinian security cooperation was agreed, and that Israel accelerated their settlement building during this period. Easier to just stay silent on all of this and simply not imply one side was more generous than the other.
G) You wrote: "Because of mismanagement and multiple corruption scandals, the Gaza Strip rejects Palestinian Authority rule, and elects Hamas (an internationally-recognized terrorist organization) as leader and launches terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, leading to three Gaza-Israeli wars." => Your "Because of..." is not mentioned in the article Palestinian legislative election, 2006 because it is not sourceable. Your "launches terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, leading to three Gaza-Israeli wars" belies an abhorrent bias. It seems that in your mind Israel doesn't take any share of the blame for its side in the provocation.
H) You wrote: "All Israeli peace offers with Palestine have been rejected, and all Palestinian offers have also been rejected, leaving us where we are today." => Your wording is unbalanced, as the middle clause reads like an afterthought.
The overriding point here is that much of this is too complex and nuanced to allow us to write balanced image captions covering all of this. Hence it is preferable to avoid it completely and keep the wording wholly factual, steering away from anything remotely subjective.
Happy new year.
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The proposed map from 1967-1994 has a thick blue line between Gaza and Israel, which doesn't seem to reflect any actual division of control there at that time. I recommend changing it to a dotted line like that of the West Bank. The caption for that image also has a loose "]]" at the end. Other than those issues, the addition is a substantial improvement in my opinion, filling in important gaps in the template. Regarding Onceinawhile's comment above (point B) about the change to the 1948-67 map, I can see that being an important point. However, it is also important to avoid giving the impression that it was a simple Palestinian government and Palestinian control. I think a valid compromise solution to this would be for both territories to be in shades of green noticeably different from the standard green, as well as different from each other. Ideally, the colors would also extend past the dotted line into the territory of Egypt and Jordan proper, to be clear about what they mean. Regarding point F above, "significant portions" is ambiguous and could be replaced with "Areas A and B". Regarding point D, debatable, but not relevant to this section in any case, as that text wasn't added as part of the edit in question. Re the first part of point G, agreed. The other captions could similarly use some work, but I strongly agree with ComServant that it is very important not to skip over the 26 intervening years of history. --Yair rand (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oncenawhile: I disagree that it's not worth a little effort to give a more clearer picture. I feel the missing information itself gives a skewed picture. The image currently portrays it as big bad Israel eating more and more of the Palestinian land - which I know is how many people view it, but is only half the picture.
C) That's kinda akin to saying Taiwan is under control of China, because both of them believe in one Chinese government, they just dispute which one is the correct one. Will technically an argument can be made that the Gaza strip and the West Bank are both ran by "The Palestinian Authority", the fact is they aren't the same government, they have different plans, different leaders, and different political alliances (for example, Gaza is allied with Iran, and Lebanon, whereas West Bank is more Saudi Arabian, Jordan, and Eygpt). It's not just a difference in political parties. I am accidentally using Palestinian Authority and Fatah interchangeably though, by mistake.
D) I didn't write that, that pre-dates my edit, and is still in the version you reverted to. =P
E) Israel's airstrikes didn't begin the conflict. They were pre-emptive airstrikes in self-defense to already planned invasion of Israel. Nevertheless if you feel calling it an 'invasion' is incorrect, reword it as "After the Six-day war, Israel had control over..."
F) Fine, write it as "Israel handed partial control of some of the West Bank territories to the Palestinian Authority, while negotiations continued towards a final peace treat (which as of 2016, has not yet been reached)."
G) Granted, I felt it biased against Israel, so I overreacted and was over-biased in the other direction, being pro-Israeli. So edit out the bias, keep the facts. "After a divided election, Hamas became the head of the Gaza strip, and Fatah remained the head of the Westbank, splitting the Palestinian territories under two governments."
H) "Continuing difficulties in reaching a final peace agreement has left the Palestinian Authority with only partial control of the Palestinian-dwelt portions of the land.". Or something to that effect.
Does that seem more reasonable? - ComServant (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yair rand: Oh, good catch with the thick blue line - definitely should be dotted. Fixed that image, and fixed the messed up Gaza strip colors in the 1948-67 one. ComServant (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oncenawhile: I edited the template to make the suggested changes, and then rolled it back to what you had previously. If the changes are satisfactory, could you make it current? ComServant (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have worked on your new version, and amended the text (also re reverted). See this comparison. Per Yair's suggestion, could you edit the colours of the third map to make them light green and dark green? Also the same for the last map would be good for the reasons above. Your Taiwan comparison is interesting but there are key differences, such as the same President and the same Constitution between the WB and GS. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A President who wasn't actually in power in Gaza? Hmm, so is Petro Poroshenko still president of Crimea?
I did another pass on the descriptions (and rolled it back, pending consensus). I also made the changes to the map colorations. ComServant (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I think the Gaza lines are still a little off. For 1967-1994, why is there a thick blue line on the sea coast? For 1994–2006, it is missing white areas for Israeli settlement areas. Also on 1994–2006, I don't think it should have thick lines around the borders at all, since Israel controlled the borders.
If you can do it, for the white settlement areas, the simplest map to use is the official Oslo agreement map here. Everything within the think blue lines was Israeli controlled, so should be whited out in our maps to be consistent with the WB side. The resolution is bad (I couldn't find better), but it is also explained at secondary sources such as File:Gaza Strip 1999.jpg and File:Gaza strip may 2005.jpg. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oncenawhile:
A) (1967-1994) Thick lines on sea coast: Fixed
B) (1994–2006) Thick lines (1994-2006): Fixed
C) (1994–2006) White settlement areas: Using the official map you gave, I laid it over the vector image and etched the exact lines onto the vector art. However, because they are small areas within an already small landmass, it's rather hard to see. *shrug* Unfortunately, I couldn't upload it as a revision of your existing image (new user permissions, I guess), so I had to upload it as a new image. ComServant (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is excellent. Thanks for the great work. You are an asset to wikipedia - here's hoping you stick around. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1916–22 proposals[edit]

This map is still an NPOV violation. It has the British/French suggestion, the Zionist suggestion, and the actual Mandate borders. It's obviously missing a Palestinian/Arab suggestion. As we know, the Arab leadership in Palestine (or at least some of them) wanted to be attached to Syria, and made specific proposals. Moreover, there was actually a Arab Kingdom of Syria during the same time frame, which included this territory. Now that we have another person who can make maps, perhaps this issue can be fixed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That map refers to proposals for an independent Palestine. The Syrian–Palestinian Congress proposed that Palestine does not become independent, but instead becomes part of Syria. So they did NOT make a proposal for the borders of Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This map is WP:SYNTH based on maps within the PLO charter and the social media-distributed "Palestinian loss of land" maps. Considering the lack of context and source, propose again to delete this template.GreyShark (dibra) 05:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Considering McGraw-Hill had to recall books and MSNBC had to apologize because they published essentially the same maps as in this template, I agree it should be removed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update As to the McGraw-Hill and MSNBC situation, I suggest you read this letter signed recently by a wide range of well known academics: [7]. These scholars conclude the same as we have here: "If there were in fact any minor errors with the maps they should have been corrected rather than removed altogether." Oncenawhile (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've had this conversation already. Those other groups of maps are not the same as these. If you want to be serious about the point you're trying to make, you need to set out exactly why those two publications were withdrawn. My recollection is that there were some specific details that were incorrect, and that those details do not apply to these maps, which are different.
Either way, this has been and almost certainly remains an open-and-shut case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Your apparent dislike for it stems from exactly the reason that it will not be deleted - it provides clarity to readers. If you don't like clarity, irrespective of whether the facts are uncomfortable regarding your political leanings, then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia.
On the other hand, if you respect Wikipedia's goal of providing clarity to readers, then you should (as suggested by many editors in all previous discussions on this topic) stop whining about the existance of the template and start focusing your energies on increasing the clarity of the template even further. Perhaps neither of you care about WP:IPCOLL - we are trying to build a dual narrative, and that lofty goal won't be achieved by trying to hide things we don't like.
Sorry guys, but you sooner or later you're going to have to accept reality here. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with those maps. They are simple and factual. Details of what is shown in each frame can be discussed, but there is no case made here for deleting the set. I suggest that the first map show the Picot-Sykes proposal for south Palestine and not just the "international" part. Zerotalk 11:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putting aside your ridiculous lecture that only someone who's not familiar with your editing practices might buy, the only editors who supported the inclusion up until this point are you and an editor with 30 edits who can no longer help you here.
I will reiterate my points that the first map is an NPOV violation because it does not include any of the Arab proposals but does include a Zionist one chosen for maximum effect, I'm not sure why we have the Golan Heights in any maps that are supposed to be about "Palestinian territory development", and of course the most obvious one, where is the current State of Palestine you guys insist exists on every other page except this one? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you suggest an explicit Arab proposal to add to the first frame? The map at Arab Kingdom of Syria seems to be just a map of Ottoman districts with some editor's dashed lines added, but we need a boundary that is published in a reliable source. Zerotalk 23:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyvio allegation[edit]

Greyshark09 who has been heavily involved in this template and has attempted to have it deleted twice (in both 2013 and 2014) now alleges copyvio. He has yet to provide evidence of this, but given that this template was built from scratch with >100 edits and self-made images, it seems highly unlikely. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is factually incorrect.GreyShark (dibra) 16:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the meantime I have reverted on the assumption that the statement 'the map is almost entirely a copy-paste of the Mahmud Abbas webpage under "Palestinian position on current issues"' refers to this page available via the "Political Position" link in president.ps/eng. If that is the page being referred to, it's unclear how the maps in this template are "almost entirely a copy-paste" of the maps there, and therefore it is unclear how it is a copyright violation. Copyright violation is illegal so if someone has broken the law it would be good to be more specific. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This template was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 May 11 as a copyright violation of a page of Mahmoud Abbas's website. I'm not seeing any evidence of copyright violation, though of course the maps are somewhat similar – they depict the same developments in the same area, after all; the text shows no similarity that I can see. Nor do I think that the maps could be considered derivative works of the supposed source, given the extensive discussion of other source maps higher up this page. I plan to close this as "No copyvio found, claim cannot be validated" unless anyone (Greyshark09?) can show clear evidence of copyright violation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers: thank you for the professional answer. My main concern was that the earlier versions of the template were either directly or indirectly based on the Mahmoud Abbas source, though over time (due to the work of Oncenawhile and some other editors), the images and the text gradually turned unaligned. Looking deeper into this i could notice that Mahmoud Abbas' "Maps of political schemes over the past decades" used the maps tagged as NAD-PLO. I could not yet find the originally notated NAD-PLO maps to match with Abbas website and the earlier versions of this template - not at the site apparently.GreyShark (dibra) 18:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greyshark, after the three years you have spent trying to attack this template from every possible angle, I am wondering what you will try next. You have exhausted almost all of Wikipedia's core content policies in vain. Perhaps you could argue that this template is actually about Charlemagne Palestine, and is therefore in violation of certain WP:BLP rules. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oncenawhile: Considering that you are not the one to create the template, but the one to improve it - why are you so worried for its gradual improvement? It is originally a PLO propaganda piece, which has successfully been upgraded into something, which might indeed be useful. And make no mistake - i bless this transition. Still, the article name and the title do not correspond and there is no mention of the sources to build this map (PLO source indicated by me perhaps?). Furthermore, this is becoming an article rather than a template, so i'm thinking an article might be a better solution. Thoughts?GreyShark (dibra) 19:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To answer your first question, it's because I think that maps are one of the best educational tools that Wikipedia has.
I don't think you are right to say that showing chronological maps of the region was originally a PLO piece. I have seen a similar set of maps in a 1973 CIA atlas. It is the only way one can simplify and illustrate the story of the conflict.
This works well as a template because it is used in a number of articles. We already have way too much overlapping / duplicative content across the I-P arena in Wikipedia. The more we can centralize discussion and consensus, the better. 22:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)\

Peel Commission[edit]

Greyshark's link has highlighted that we are missing the 1937 Peel Commission proposal in this template. It is highly relevant since it represents the first official partition proposal in history. I will add this in due course. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps since you haven't created this map in the first place, were not aware of its domain origin. But now when you do, you seem to rely on it without mentioning the origin?GreyShark (dibra) 19:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please elaborate - I do not understand what you mean? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First map[edit]

1916–22 proposals is undue. It is better replaced with a map showing Arab and Jewish land ownership. Like these ones [8], [9]. The distribution of the Kibbutz played a role in the partition plan. When you hear of "Palestine" one thinks of Arab rule, when you hear of "Israel" one thinks of Jewish rule, and so "Modern evolution of Palestine / Israel." should reflect this. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Such a map was in here (see [10] for the diff when it was deleted). No More Mr Nice Guy's arguments for the deletion are in the threads above - I suggest you read them before commenting.
I have always viewed the first map as critical to a balanced understanding of the story, since the border of Mandate Palestine were created at the beginning of the conflict as a result of a negotiation. It represents the first negotiation over the borders of what was designated to become the Jewish Homeland.
As to the population map, I agree that the story is missing a component without it, as the 1947 UN proposal included a very large amount of land on which there was almost no Jewish settlement. However, a comparison with the Peel Commission map (see proposal above) might provide that missing link, given that the Peel commission proposal was much more focused on the existing areas of Jewish settlement.
Oncenawhile (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok but what about the 1919 Zionist Organization proposal, its undue.There were several other territorial proposals, tiny example; in 1940s, Zionist leaders asked for the inclusion of the port of Aqaba into the Jewish state.
And that proposal was a lot more serious as it was directed during the time of the making of the UN partition plan. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ZO 1919 proposal was made at the Paris Peace Conference, where many of the modern world's borders were agreed in principle. The ZO proposal represents the largest proposed boundaries, whereas Skyes-Picot borders (proposed at the conference by the French) reresent the smallest. The ultimately agreed Mandate borders were somewhere in between. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please add Jaffa to 1947 map[edit]

The 1947 map is missing Jaffa.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#/media/File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.svg


Now that we have a 1937 map it looks weird. Not to have Jaffa on the 1947 map. Jonney2000 (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Israel land VS Arab land[edit]

The change maps of the this part was unfair. Arab lands more larger than Israel. --Erik Fastman (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very amusing to assume people speaking the same language are identical in everything else. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1947 land ownership[edit]

I belive the map depicting Jewish land ownership in 1947 is misleading. It makes it seem as though all of the white-marked lands were owned by Arabs, when in reality they only owned about about 11% of the land, as described in the source in the last edit. I understand the editor gamed the 30/500 accessibility, but that doesn't nessecarily mean his/her edits were flawed. This one was certainly an improvement. Is it okay for me to just restore it, or does anyone have a different opinion? Edit: another option is to leave the current map as it is, but adding a map depicting Arab owned lands adjacent to the Jewish, or in the same map with a different color. Dank Chicken (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having one map showing Jewish-owned and Arab-owned land in different colors would be ideal, in my opinion. Anyone have access to that data? --Yair rand (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed! Dank Chicken (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This needs a reliable source. “israeladvocacy.net” is not acceptable. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's why I also listed the British provisional automomy plan and John Mattews' Israel Palestine land division as sources. If you cannot provide reasons for why they're also "not reliable", I'll revert to my map. Dank Chicken (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two issues here: (1) how the caption should deal with the issue of state lands, and (2) whether your proposed alternative map is valid.
To deal with the second point first, you have not provided a source for your map. None of the links you provided show a map with “arab lands” juxtaposed against the Jewish owned land.
You will not find a map like it in a reliable source. I have never seen one like it, and whilst I can imagine it being created by a propaganda organization to try to create a certain impression, it would not be published in that form by reputable scholars.
If you are interested to understand why, you’ll need to understand the Ottoman Land Code of 1858.
Onceinawhile (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, administrator Hedwig in Washington (talk · contribs) accepted the new name, map and sources.[1][2][3][4]
There is no exact map showing the Arab lands, but there are reliable statistics available. The only thing I had to do was calculate the percentage of Arab lands (11.6%) in accordance with their approximate locations on the map. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the current version, which makes it seem as if the Arabs owned all of the non-Jewish lands.
Dank Chicken (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ 1
  2. ^ 2
  3. ^ 3
  4. ^ 4

Dank Chicken, whst you have done with the map is known as “original research”. It is expressly prohibited - see Wikipedia:No original research. You admit there is no source with such a map, so at wikipedia we cannot create one. That is a fundamental tenet of this encyclopedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to make this extra clear, see WP:SYNTH: “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources”. Your map is synthesized to imply a false equivalence between Jewish PICA- and JNF-owned land with Arab “Mulk” land under the 1858 law. This is propagandistic nonsense, which is why you won’t find it in reliable sources, and a good example of why these wikipedia policies exist. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then at least change back to the statistics i wrote. That is not original research, the land ownership percentages are explicitly stated in the source. Because as I said, the current version is extremely misleading and borderline promotes propaganda like this. Aslo, if you must mention Jewish population rise you might also want to mention Arab population rise in Mandatory Palestine.
Dank Chicken (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The statistics you wrote require nuance in the context of the 1858 law, otherwise it gives a misleading impression of what State Land is, and the false equivalence I described above.
The CIA published a range of maps, currently linked to on the image page.
On Arab poplation, see Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#The_question_of_late_Arab_and_Muslim_immigration_to_Palestine. This is another propaganda theme.
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The laws of the Ottoman Empire were barley relevant in 1947. The source clearly states that the British state land was 44.1% public and 26.1% (of the total mandate area) leased, which I intend to write in the template picture description.
My point regarding the mention of the Jewish population rise 1922–1946 was merely that if you must mention that, I belive you should also mention the Arab population rise between those excact years because there are reliable statistics from that period. The current text is extremely one-sided. I'm not trying to push propaganda in any way, I'm just trying to contribute with a little neutrality.
Dank Chicken (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe you are not intending to push propaganda. But you have been doing exactly that.
Please ensure you understand the context for the data you are talking about before continuing to push. Your current understanding is deeply mislead.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid your judgement of sources is extremely lacking. This source is useless: the author has no expertise in the subject and the sources he provides show that he doesn't know about the scholarly literature. He even cites garbage like "Myths&Facts" and Wikipedia pages! Zerotalk 08:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Had Zero0000 (talk · contribs) bothered to examine the sources listed in the link I posted, I wouldn't even need to write this reply.
John Matthews' "Israel–Palestine land division" had many sources to back up the statistics, but Moshe Aumann's "Land Ownership in Palestine 1880–1948" was his primary one. That text relies on the original source, "Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine, 1946, British Government Printer, p. 257." which is very much reliable.
Dank Chicken (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your source is a career diplomat, paid throughout his career to sell Israeli government views to foreign governments. He is not a reliable source for matters of history. The underlying Survey of Palestine is linked in the images here - you can read it yourself. Context is crucial.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Had Zero0000 bothered...", haha, I looked at all of them and I was already familiar with all of them. Including Aumann's propaganda pamphlet that was written by him as an employee of the Israeli government. Anyone who reads blatant lies like "Arab owners who imprudently heeded the call from neighbouring countries to 'get out of the way' while the invading Arab armies made short shrift of Israel" should know that he/she is not looking at a reliable source. Nor does the 1946 Survey provide the numbers in your source. Actually it repeatedly emphasises the uncertainty in the figures. Zerotalk 00:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we at least agree on this text?
"Mandatory Palestine, showing Jewish-owned regions as of 1947 in blue, constituting 7.4% of the total land area. At least 66.4% of the area was British state-owned public/leased land, and the rest was owned by various groups including private Arabs, foreign owners and religious trusts. The red line illustrates the border of the mandate."
And potentially also this part: "The Jewish population had increased from 83,790 to 608,000 and the Arab population had increased from 589,000 to 1,181,000 between the years 1922-1946."

Note that the 1946 Survey of Palestine, page 257 clearly states that 9,000 sq km at most was privatley-owned (up to 2,000 in the Beersheba district; up to 7,000 in the other districts), and the total mandate area made up 26,790 sq km. The figure 6% is outdated, that was the Jewish land ownership in late 1944, not 1947. The stats for Arab/Jewish population rise can be found at Demographic history of Palestine (region).
Dank Chicken (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it is too much and too argumentative. I'd agree to add something like this to the middle panel: "The white areas were a mixture of privately owned Arab land and state land." The actual figures can be argued back and forth but this is not the place for it. An alternative set of figures is on page 43 of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on The Palestine Question, Sub-Committee 2. Zerotalk 11:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NO! That's precisley what i was trying to avoid. There is not one single source that suggests >17% was onwed arab land, and the ones claiming >12% aren't particularly reliable. Writing that the white areas were "state/Arab land" makes it seem as if 92.6% of the land was somewhat equally split between state and Arab ownership, which is defenitley NOT the case.
Also, do you really belive this suggestion is argumentative?
"Mandatory Palestine, showing Jewish-owned regions as of 1947 in blue, constituting 7.4% of the total land area. At least 66.4% of the area was British state-owned public/leased land, and the rest was owned by various groups including private Arabs, foreign owners and religious trusts. The red line illustrates the border of the mandate."
It's strictly factual. To avoid it being too long, just exclude the part about population as it is not relevant to describing the picture, and the stats can be found in Jewish land purchase in Palestine which is already linked to in the text.

Writing about the proportion of state land without noting that most of it was fairly useless desert amounts to deception by omission. The "strictly factual" story is that the proportion of useful land under Arab ownership was quite high. Exactly how high is something that other people can argue about; I've heard all the arguments and read all the primary sources and don't care to hear them again. Even the desert areas were largely occupied by (bedouin) Arabs in a different sense that wasn't counted then (and isn't today either). You can't write your distortions into the page, sorry. Zerotalk 12:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To illustrate what I mean, Table 2 on page 566 of Volume 2 of the 1946 "Survey of Palestine" shows 86% of cultivable land under ownership of "Arabs & other non-Jews". That number relies on estimates of land not yet legally classified and on decisions about different land tenure systems, but so do all sources on this question. Zerotalk 13:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There we go again; "Arabs & other non-Jews". You're making no distinction between private Arab residents, the British state and other entities, which is very distortive indeed.
My last proposal is as neutral as it gets, and the map isn't depicting cultivable land, it's depicting all land under the mandate. So if you want to make such a map, be my guest! But please admit that my proposal is the most accurate description to the image in question...
Dank Chicken (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The great bulk of state land fell into the 66% of Palestine classified by that table as "uncultivable" or "roads, railways, rivers and lakes". It isn't counted in the 86% I mentioned. Also, separating the land owned by foreign Arabs from that owned by local Arabs sounds reasonable until we realise that a large part of the "Jewish owned land" was held by Jewish companies and organisations incorporated in foreign countries. You have no case here and you should drop it. Zerotalk 23:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All foreign owners were not Arabs. And I didn't separate their stats in my last suggestion. I simply wrote "... and the rest was owned by various groups including private Arabs, foreign owners and religious trusts." Also, most of the Jewish corporations were based in mandatory Palestine and leased their land to local Jews, so that comparison is illegitimate. It is you who have no case. Come on, do you really not realise how incredible biased the current text is? You neither mention the vast state owned lands (btw much of the "uncultivable" land was later built up by new kibbutzes), nor the Arab population rise. Mentioning the state owned lands is actually particularly important considering all the propaganda out there about "Palestine" owning all non-Jewish lands. Dank Chicken (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have no consensus for your proposals. Zerotalk 09:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not yet, but nobody has been able to successfully argue against my latest proposal, which is relevant to the map and is explicitly backed by the British survey of Palestine. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see... Dank Chicken (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. You are willfully ignoring facts that have already been presented to you. The legal construct in which Arabs were in possession of their land was not comparable to the new Jewish ownership structures based on Western concepts of title. Your decision to overlook this is resulting in your subsequent comments becoming irrelevant. Noone is going to take your comments seriously until you engage with this central issue. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000: do you happen to have a copy of volume 1 of the 1931 census? A few documents on this topic point to page 355 of the census. For example [11] and on page 106 of Grannott (The Land System in Palestine — History and Structure, 1952). Onceinawhile (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onceinawhile: It is here. I expect you mean p335, since there are only 345 pages in total. Incidentally the split between "Arabs" and "Others" is available in the original edition of the Village Statistics 1945 (not in the edition published by IPS). Here are the percentages given for all land not classed as "uncultivable": Arabs 82.0%, Jews 13.6%, Public 3.1%, Others 1.0%, Roads+railways+etc 0.2%. For the areas classed as "uncultivable" (64.0% of all of Palestine), ownership was given as Arabs 28.6%, Jews 1.2%, Public 69.2%, Others 0.3%, Roads+railways+etc 0.8%. From this it is clear that not distinguishing good land from bad land gives entirely the wrong picture, and also that there is no conspiracy hiding in "others". Incidentally, though Granot/Grannot/Granott/Grannott (all variations exist for Granovsky's adopted name) was a serious scholar, it is good to remember that he was writing at a time when Israel was casting around for the best way to permanently confiscate the vast "abandoned" lands of the Arabs who were dispossessed. Zerotalk 01:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those percentages are about claims and not ownership and you know it. Also, could you stop with this cultivable/uncultivable land distinction; as I already pointed out, this map is about all of Mandatory Palestine, and much of the desert/swamp lands were later restored by kibbutzes.
Please remain on-topic: this is about land ownership in Mandatory Palestine as of 1947. Not land claims in certain parts of the mandate.
Dank Chicken (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing in the source about claims. Let me remind you that "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." Making up things as you just did is disruptive. Contributing nothing except dodgy sources and stone-walling is disruptive. Go away. Zerotalk 12:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am trying to be constructive. The current text is factually flawed[note 1] and leaves out relevant information[note 2]. If you consider the survey of Palestine biased, then I'm sorry but you might not be the best reviewer at source criticism.

  1. ^ The figure 6% is outdated, that was the Jewish land ownership in late 1944, not 1947.
  2. ^ Note that the 1946 Survey of Palestine, page 257 clearly states that 9,000 sq km at most was privatley-owned (up to 2,000 in the Beersheba district; up to 7,000 in the other districts), and the total mandate area made up 26,790 sq km, which means at least 66.4% of the mandate land was British state-owned.
    The ownership of cultivable land and differing ownership claims are separate issues for other maps.
    The text also mentions Jewish population rise, but not the Arab population rise under that same period, which is questionable for POV.

Dank Chicken (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edits[edit]

I belive my last edits should be allowed. The current version has no sources to back its statistics, and I listed three different sources (for population growth, British land ownership and Jewish/Arab land ownership). 217.214.150.150 (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:ARBPIA3 you cannot edit this page under any circumstances. I will now request the page be locked. - GalatzTalk 15:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Galatz: I see. Can you add it then? 217.214.150.150 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2018[edit]

I belive my last edits should be allowed. The current version has no sources to back its statistics, and I listed three different, reliable (one of them was the official British census) sources (for population growth, British land ownership and Jewish/Arab land ownership). I ask any editor to revert the page to my last version. 217.214.150.254 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I'm afraid that's not how it's done. This topic area is one that's been subject to huge disruption in the past, which is why there are [restrictions on who can make edits] to this type of template. Simply asking for your edits to be reinstated does not address that issue. You need to propose the change here, with the sources you'd like to use, and make it clear exactly which text your proposed edit would alter or make additions to. I apologize for the inconvenience this inflicts on you but getting edits clearly correct in this topic area is now a higher priority to the project than making it easy to edit. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The requested change has already been discussed in the thread above at #1947 land ownership. The discussion was held in good faith, despite the repeated sock-puppetry (later confirmed with blocks). No consensus was gained for the proposal. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2018[edit]

Revert to this version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Palestinian_territory_development&oldid=822068709

Despite common myth, it has NOT been discussed in the talk page. This is another text, with new sources. The current version is false and has no sources. 217.214.149.139 (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit extended-protected)) template. See above discussion. If you want to change this, you will have to start a Request for Comments here. Any such request is far outside the parameters of edit requests. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment for instructions on the proper creation and advertising of an RfC. As and aside, when formulating your request, expecting responding editors to review a prior edit and discern the correct new text generally results in poor responses. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC (Private Jewish Land Ownership)[edit]

Should the map "1947 (actual):" be removed? Jonney2000 (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to be more clear. What sort of Jewish ownership was there apart from what is shown? Another problem is that the green areas in the last two maps are not explained. Zerotalk 01:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue here is rather straightforward - if we show Jewish ownership, then we should show the corresponding area owned by Arabs that resided inside the mandate areas. Large portions of the map were state lands (e.g. most of the Negev desert) not owned by anyone. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per File:Palestine Index to Villages and Settlements, showing Land in Jewish Possession as at 31.12.44.jpg, the first point above is wrong - it shows fund, company, shared and concession lands; it is a very wide definition. As to the second point, this has been discussed previously. The map is needed to illustrate the logic of the subsequent partition map. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The map should stay for multiple reasons. First, the Jewish Agency considered such statistics critical to Zionist development in Palestine, which is why they regularly published progress reports such as this map. It's too late now to disclaim its importance. Second, a similar map of Arab private ownership is not available because (a) the land court had only processed a fraction of Palestine by the end of the Mandate, (b) there were multiple types of land ownership that didn't apply to land bought by Jews. Third, though it is true that most the Negev and some waste land was officially state land, a large amount of "state land" was Arab village land that was not available for any other purpose. Under the classifications of the 1945 Village Statistics, "Arab land" was 8.5 times "Jewish land". If we had a map showing it, that would be great, but the absence of such a map is not an excuse for hiding what we do have. Zerotalk 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that this map should be removed. The original argument is sound and has not been refuted: it shows land ownership whereas the other maps shows various boundaries. To be consistent, we should adopt one of two approaches
  1. Ignore land ownership and remove 1947 (actual) map.
  2. Show land ownership consistently, which entails showing all the Arab-owned lands within the borders of Israel (see the map to the right for a rough idea)

I think both approaches are legitimate but since we don't have good maps which show current land ownership by ethnicity and public land, for now we should remove the 1947 map. Alaexis¿question? 11:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The map you have shown above is a modern map. It therefore excludes the enormous amount of land which has been expropriated from the Palestinians over the last 70+ years. It cannot and should not be read to give a rough idea of the situation in 1947-48.
The land ownership map is of fundamental importance; without it a reader cannot understand the shape of the partition plan.
Your point about public land is mistaken; the Arab community was the only one who lived on the public land.
It’s inclusion in this series of maps derives from the 1973 CIA Atlas here.
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that it's a modern map. My point is that if we show Jewish land ownership in 1947 we should show Jewish land ownership today too (which doesn't include land that is currently state-owned or owned by Arabs) to be consistent.
Regarding the 1973 CIA atlas, I suppose you'd want to add the maps of David's and Hasmonean kingdoms to the template too? Alaexis¿question? 12:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a bit confused. Everyone would be happy to have a series of maps that show equivalent things with equivalent definitions. But if we don't have that, the best we can do is carefully explain what is shown by the maps we do have. I don't see the argument for removing maps. Zerotalk 13:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have hundreds of maps depicting various aspects of the history of the region. We should include maps that are relevant and do not mislead the reader. Now they do, unfortunately. Switching from borders to ownership and back to borders is a sleight of hand which exaggerates the changes and therefore constitutes a violation of NPOV.
There are two solutions, as I said. We can remove the 1947 map and keep it focused on the factual and proposed boundaries. Another solution is to add the map on the right to the end. While not being perfect, it shows the real population distribution. I prefer the former but would be fine with the latter too. Alaexis¿question? 13:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree this map doesn't belong to template and should be removed Shrike (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess we'll need a proper RfC. Alaexis¿question? 11:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue with a link[edit]

Hello, I withdraw the link to that historical map, as the French description do not reflect the English historical translation. Indeed the French annotation reads "Réparation de la propriété agraire" which can be translated as "Distribution of the agrarian property", which relate to the cultivated land as of 1945. File:Palestine Land ownership by sub-district (1945).jpg

--Vanlister (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue with the first map[edit]

Hello, I found at least one anachronism in the first map regarding British mandate borders, the 1949 Armistice demilitarized zone is presented on the map of the British mandate.

Please fix the line, or we will need to add a footnote explaining the error. --Vanlister (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue with description[edit]

The map of 1948-1967, is presented as "actual" which is inconsistent in 2022, while the map of the geopolitical situation of "1967-1994" is still relevant, as there territory is still viewed as Israeli Occupied Territory, while the Oslo Accords are about self-governance rather than boundaries.--Vanlister (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories