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)[reply]

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

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

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

Restoration of location map

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 then 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)[reply]