Module talk:Location map/data/Syria

Map

"Syria location map2" follows mainstream map unlike "Syria location map". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

1. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/syria_pol_2007.jpg
2. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/syria_pol90.jpg
3. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/syria_pol_1976.jpg
4. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_middle_east/syria_map.jpg
5. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/syria_rel90.jpg
6. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/cia10/syria_sm_2010.gif
7. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/syria_wall_2004.jpg
8. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/syria_admin_2007.jpg
9. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_middle_east/syria_divisions.jpg
10. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_middle_east/syria_econ.jpg
11. http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/syria.pdf --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Syria location map2" doesn't exist. --Obersachse (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

yes it does:[1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought you're talking about Template:Syria location map2. --Obersachse (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of location map

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

---

The location map2 is bringing a lot of confusion, as the Quneitra area shows fully under Syrian control in light of the civil war; de-facto nearly one half of Quneitra area is under Israeli military control from 1967.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The map2 shows the accurate boundaries of Syria, which the other one does not. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that map, as long as Israeli-controlled area is colored differently when the rest of Syria (same as Hatay issue).Greyshark09 (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

All of Syria must be in the same color, and the Map2 is in accordance with UN and CIA maps, your non neutral edit strongly violates npov and is contradicting reality. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate, the one violating NPOV is yourself. Syria is now fractured and political claims need to be carefully put, not-denying political claims of Syria on the Israeli-controlled Golan. This is why it has to be a different color. I will bring other users from a related discussion.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of your views on whether Syria is "fractured", there is near unanimous agreement among the international community that the Golan Heights are in Syria, and using a map that takes the opposing view is in fact what violates NPOV. And you were reverted after your change, you shouldnt try to re-revert over that. nableezy - 13:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless the view that Golan Heights are in Syria (region), most of it is not under Syrian governship for almost half a century. While pro-Israeli editors would like to put Golan Heights within Israel and you would like the map to keep the pre-1967 situation, the compromise is to hatch the disputed area. Today, even Arab news networks do not color Golan in same color as other parts of Syria (see [2]). It is pointless to try retroactive maps for current situations as Kunnigsberg being regarded as German, north Cyprus to be referred as unified Cyprus and that whole Western Sahara is separate from Morocco. Eventually, if no decision is made now, we will end up with a map with Golan being part of Israel, which is not my desire.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Should Israeli-controlled part of Golan be in different color?

Slightly different color for Israeli-controlled part of Golan (Syria location map.svg)

Same color for all Golan (Syria location map2.svg)

I will start here a poll whether Israeli-controlled part of the Golan (from 1967) should have a different color than Syrian territory (rebel or government controlled combined). There is no need to put "Israeli Golan Heights" within the borders of Israel, but simply color slightly differently than the rest of Syria. Current version of the map, advocated by Supreme is highly confusing, letting think that Israeli-controlled part of the Golan is also part of the Syrian civil war theater (here). Please vote whether we need the same color (for "Syria location map2") or different color (for "Syria location map").Greyshark09 (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Different color (Syria location map) - for the above stated reasons.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The Israeli-occupied part of the Golan is Syrian territory. There is no such thing as "Israeli Golan Heights" as you call it. The map2 shows the dmz line separating the Israeli-occupied part of Syria from the rest of Syria, making the color different would imply that the part occupied by Israel is not Syria. And as can be seen above: UN and CIA maps have the same color for all of Syria. If you have any problems with maps in regards to who controls what in the Syrian civil war then custom maps can be created. And the Israeli-occupied part of Syria is part of the Syrian Uprising as Syrians living under the foreign Israeli occupation have demonstrated in their villages there, mortars have landed there and peoples have also fled there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I said "Israeli-controlled Golan Heights", so there is no political argument here in this proposal and don't try to put it that way. The original map (Syrian location map) saying who controls which part exists, but you had replaced it prior to Syrian civil war, maybe when it was less relevant.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - apparently also a Syrian map hatched version for Israeli-controlled part of Golan exists. See [File:Rif Dimashq in Syria (+Golan hatched).svg].Greyshark09 (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I can accepted a map where the occupied land is hatched. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rif_Dimashq_in_Syria_%28%2BGolan_hatched%29.svg --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, that may be a solution - let's however wait for some other editors' opinions.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)*

Different color Accurate refection of situation.Pug6666 13:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Depends on context - the template is flexible enough to use either map via the "alternative map=" parameter. If we actually had a hatched version of the map (I don't think we have one that doesn't also highlight Rif Dimashq) the template would work with that as well. So there's absolutely no reason to edit-war here; instead we should decide at every page where the template is used whether the same color or a different color is more appropriate. In the context of the Civil War I'd say a different color is more appropriate because the Israeli-occupied are not a part of that civil war. I'd also say that a map of the current situation is not encyclopedic anyway - there's no special significance to the July 10 situation as opposed to the July 9 situation and we violate WP:NOTNEWS. Producing versions of this map for specific situations - say, before and after a certain offensive - would be worthwhile, daily updates simply are not. Huon (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, but I don't see why we shouldn't indicate that the Golan Heights is currently under Israeli occupation. It's certainly relevant, civil war or not, but especially in light of the previous minor clashes (and further potential confrontations) between Israeli and Syrian forces (government or rebels). I prefer stripe-shading (hatched) over using a different color, but on this point as well, I have no strong feelings either way. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Different color - running around wiki and changing maps just to make it appear as if GH is "in Syria" will not change the fact that it is currently quite outside of any Syrian influence, whether we like it or not. Different color semiotics is clear for Georgia (country), so why not here? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Georgia location map has the same color for the entire country, despite that the Georgian government does not control the entire country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Georgia_location_map.svg so your argument is invalid.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Georgia location map has the same color for the entire country, despite that the Georgian government does not control the entire country.

AgadaUrbanit meant orthographic map.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This template is for a location map.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Orthographic map of Georgia

• Same color, obviously. An accurate representation of the situation is that the Golan Heights are in Syria and occupied by Israel. See for example this or this or this. I could maybe accept the hatched map, but one that does not show Syrian territory as being in Syria is so beyond accurate that even Israel's only real ally puts the Golan in Syria. nableezy - 13:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Who said the map should put "Golan in Israel"??? The suggestion is to distinguish Syrian Golan and Israeli-controlled part. Hatched is also fine. period.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I dont know, I didnt say anything close to that. I said that its in Syria, and even the United States, a country that is Israel's most dependable ally, puts the Golan squarely in Syria. Not sure who you are quoting as the first instance of the phrase "Golan in Israel" is your comment. nableezy - 18:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - seems there is a clear consensus to exchange the template map to a similar map of Rif Damascus with Israeli-controlled part of the Golan being hatched - that would be enough to prevent confusion as Syrian civil war theater and reflect the actual situation of Israeli military control on the Western part of Golan plateu. Anyone would like to implement the change?Greyshark09 (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you say that after two days? I actually think Huon's suggestion of adding a map and using it where appropriate with the alternate_map parameter is best. nableezy - 17:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't close the discussion, i've just asked if someone can draw a suitable map of Syria with hatched Golan (similar to Rif Dimashq map). Except that you clearly supported hatching as a suitable compromise. You are seriously in need of some WP:GF.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I wasnt clear, and I am assuming your good faith. I objected to seems there is a clear consensus. I dont see that clear consensus, and two days wouldnt be enough to make that judgement anyway. I emphatically am not accusing you of anything other than perhaps misjudging a clear consensus, and I certainly dont mean to make it sound as though I think you are doing so in bad faith. Ive worked well enough with you in the past that I wouldnt make that assumption, and I am sorry if that is how the comment read. nableezy - 19:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, first of all let's give it a week (at least five more days+two already passed) and ask an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion. Perfectly reasonable.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If one of us has the tools and skills necessary to create a hatched version of the map (I don't), there's no reason to wait with that. Whether this template should default to the hatched, the off-color or the white Golan map is a separate issue. Huon (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I also agree with Huom and nableezy that we can have two maps with alternate_map. So I support the neutral map showing the same color for all of Syria, in the same way as the Georgia location map, and then a map showing the part of Syria occupied by Israel hatched.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the hatched version is the best compromise, and it looks like such a map has already been made: File:Syria location map3.svg.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Slightly different offwhite color for Israeli-controlled part of Golan (Syria location map.svg)

Same color for all Syria+Golan (Syria location map2.svg)

Different hatched color version of Golan (Syria location map3.svg

Different grey color Golan version

• Comment - i would like to notify users that hatched version (File:Syria location map3.svg) has been created in response my request by kind user:NordNordWest. I do however understand that some users prefer a fourth option - using a Syrian map, which completely excludes the Golan ("gray"), and we should count this opinion as well in the total. Considering the creation of hatched map and bringing to the table the fourth "gray" option (all options shown on the right - offwhite golan "map"; same color golan "map2"; hatched golan "map3"; gray Golan excluded from Syria), does anyone reconsider his/her previous statement?Greyshark09 (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to conclude opinions which Golan map version to use as default map:

Greyshark09 - different color (hatched)

SupremeDeliciousness - preferring same color, possible different color at certain conditions (hatched)

Pug6666 - different color (offshite/hatched/gray)

Huon - (no certain choice)

Al Ameer son - different color (hatched)

AgadaUrbanit - different color (offshite/hatched/gray)

Nableezy - same color

FutureTrillionaire - different color (hatched)

Any comments?Greyshark09 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose color/hatch proposal. File:Syria location map2.svg has been used in Template:Location map Syria since October 2010.[3] The request is to use a map in Template:Location map Syria, where the resulting map would show the location of the Golan Heights through color or hatching in the present 670+ articles that transclude Template:Location map Syria. The stated purpose is so that the location map additionally show parts controlled/occupied by others. The standard applied to the discussion include Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Location maps and Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles. WikiProject Maps Location maps: File:Syria location map2.svg uses doted lines for borders around the Golan Heights area, which appears to be based on the "doted lines for borders" mentioned at WikiProject Maps Location maps. Each of the editors in this discussion agree that File:Syria location map2.svg enlightens the place and area of a major sub-division's in Syria, which is what WikiProject Maps Location maps requires. WikiProject Maps Location maps also notes that a convention and set style is followed when constructing these maps, and there is no showing that location maps additionally showing parts controlled/occupied by others follows the established convention and set style, which takes its style from the Public Domain CIA World Factbook's maps. The proposed coloring/hatching of the Golan Heights does not focus on Syria and its official borders and subdivisions borders. Wikipedia:Using maps: Looking at Wikipedia:Using maps, the above request does not indicate how showing Golan Heights controlled/occupied by others will be clearly explained in a neutral fashion in each of the 670+ articles now using the template. There is no showing in this discussion that the proposed depict details of coloring/hatching the Golan Heights is supported by reliable sources in each of the 670+ articles now using the template. Showing the location of the Golan Heights in Location map Syria through color/hatching will only show the location of the Golan Heights and not convey to readers that the Golan Heights is controlled by Israel. There is no reason to believe that readers will read more into the map than is already there, so the request does not accomplish its stated purpose. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You did a wrong vote - you should choose one of the 4 presented versions (Same color/different offwhite color/different hatched color/different grey color). It's completely unclear what your opposition it to.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Related discussion on Syrian Civil War maps

Users are welcome to discuss the question whether adding Israel as 5th belligerent to Syrian Civil War maps is legitimate. Please discuss it at talk:Syrian Civil War#Adding Israel as belligerent on Syrian Civil War maps.GreyShark (dibra) 09:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a dishonest and non neutral comment and inappropriate canvassing. The discussion is not to ad Israel as 5th belligerent to Syrian Civil War maps, but to show that in a map showing the "Current military situation in Syria" Israel is occupying the Golan heights. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)