Category talk:Maps of the State of Palestine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maps of the State of Palestine category.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles

Palestine

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles

Images that belong in this category or its subcategories

So far, I have found 2 images that belong in this category or its subcategories:

This category also links to more images in the parallel wikimedia commons category:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_the_Palestinian_territories

Please also see this discussion:

Image talk:Is-map.PNG#Map categories. --Timeshifter 06:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more images that belong in this category or its subcategories:

How to put category links on an image page

Images can be in multiple categories. Maps, for example, often cover multiple nations and territories. So maps can have category links for both "Maps of Israel" and "Maps of the Palestinian territories." Historical maps of Palestine before the creation of Israel in 1947 belong in "Maps of Palestine".

Just paste the code for any of the applicable category links below to the bottom of the relevant image pages.

[[Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories]]

[[Category:Maps of Palestine]]

[[Category:Maps of Israel]]

See the map category index for additional map categories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps --Timeshifter 09:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories created

[[Category:Maps of the West Bank]]

[[Category:Maps of Gaza Strip]] --Timeshifter 12:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons media in English wikipedia categories

Commons media are for the use of all wikipedia sites worldwide. The English wikipedia pages for those commons media list the English wikipedia pages on which those commons media are used.

The commons page for a particular image does not list the English wikipedia pages on which that image is being used.

There are images in English wikipedia categories that would not be accepted in the commons. Gif images, fair use images, etc.. So the link to the commons category allows for more public-domain images to be used in English wikipedia pages.

The existence of the English wikipedia category allows for links to be made to the commons category of the same name. So English wikipedia editors then know of the additional commons media available to them. Those images are sometimes better, as explained previously. Oftentimes there is a larger selection of images at the commons.

The existence of the English wikipedia category also allows a logical location for links to the English wikipedia subcategories.

Not all commons images are suitable for placement in English wikipedia categories. Images captioned in other languages for example.

As many others have done I put some of the English-language commons images in the English wikipedia categories. This saves editors time in finding images. Because they don't have to click many commons images to open them up and see what language is used on the image. --Timeshifter 08:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion in this category

I am copying something below that an admin wrote on a couple user talk pages concerning this issue:

Where maps show Israel and the Palestinian territories at an equivalent level of detail, as Image:Israel.png does, they should be listed in both categories. Where either Israel or the territories are shown only as an outline, as in Image:Cia-is-map2.gif, then I agree that they should only be shown in one category. I've used those criteria to categorise those particular maps on the Commons. -- ChrisO 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable. --Timeshifter 15:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely UNreasonable. Israel.png is a map of Israel, it says so right on the map. It does not say "Israel and the Palestinian territories" on the map. Not to mention that "Palestinian territories" is a POV term anyway, particularly if it is connected to a map that shows all of the West Bank and part of Jerusalem as "Palestinian territories." 6SJ7 05:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wikipedia page called Palestinian territories. So why not maps of the Palestinian territories? There is additional discussion on my user talk page and here: Image talk:Israel.png.

The previous map that this one replaced was much less detailed. It was an adaptation of this map: Image:Cia-is-map2.gif. It also was used on many pages. See the many pages listed at the bottom of the image page: Image:Israel.png. A map does not have to be perfect to be used on many wikipedia pages. We don't have enough choices. We need more maps to be uploaded. To do that we need the categories to upload them to. Readers need to easily see what currently exists. That requires map categories. A map may be labeled in many ways. Just because it is labeled "Israel" does not mean the map can not be used in other categories. It is common for maps to be labeled with one nation's name even when it covers several nations and territories.

Tewfik and others were repeatedly removing maps from several map categories, and then putting speedy-delete notices on them. Discussion was futile. Tewfik never accepted the reasons for the existence of the map categories. These are the same map category names as are used in wikimedia commons. All Tewfik's questions were answered, yet he and others continued to delete all images in a couple categories and put them up for speedy deletes.

The categories in question were Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories and Category:Maps of the history of the Palestinian territories. Admin tools were being incorrectly used in speedy deleting these categories. Because the categories still contain subcategories even when all the images are removed. See WP:CSD#Categories. It states: "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories." See the image and category talk pages for more info and discussion: Image talk:Israel.png. See also my user talk page.

The incorrect speedy-deleting of the categories is a serious problem. There were additional links I had to rebuild from scratch when recreating the categories. I really don't care what the name of the map category is. I just wish this constant name changing, category deletion, and image category reclassification would end. I now find out today that some people object to the name Palestinian territories. Are we going to delete this wikipedia page: Palestinian territories? If "Palestinian territories" is not correct, then tell me the official wikipedia names to be used. Don't the UN and wikipedia and the most of the world use the phrase "Palestinian territories"? We have map categories for Hawaii, the Bahamas, etc.. They are all the most common names in English for these land groupings. So why not the Palestinian territories? --Timeshifter 08:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have little or no problem with the article Palestinian territories because the article itself spends a significant amount of space discussing the controversy over the term and other terms that are used to mean the same or similar things. It has all the information and nuance that a categorization cannot. In the case of Israel.png, we have a map that says "Israel" but it is in a category that says "Palestinian territories", which has all kinds of implications that are objectionable to a number of people. It is a POV statement with no balance, whereas the Palestinian territories article has all POV's in balance, more or less. 6SJ7 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. It seems there are similar problems with article names. As someone who has added maps, images, charts, etc. to wikipedia pages, I can say that it is not necessary to distinguish everything on the map itself. The caption under the image can be used. That caption will change depending on the particular wikipedia page the map will be placed on. Modified UN maps are in the public domain. So that map could be further modified and then uploaded to replace the current image. The top title could be changed to "Israel, the Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip), the Golan Heights, and environs." Or something similar. But it is not required in order to be used in wikipedia pages. The caption under the image can link to Palestinian territories for further info and nuance. It seems like "Palestinian territories" is the least objectionable map category name. --Timeshifter 18:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about "Tewfik never accepted the reasons for the existence of the map categories". I'm not sure why you think that if you 'keep answering my questions' in a manner satisfactory to you, that I must agree. As for deletions of your categories, I don't know where you got the idea that we are supposed to replicate the categories and images of the Commons on Wikipedia, as you've done in several of the cases, but that is entirely in error, as I've mentioned to you several times, and as was even clarified by xaosflux on my Talk (which you commented on at length). Wikipedia is currently trying to move free images to the Commons, and not vice versa. The creation of analogous categories for only one or two images is only slightly less helpful, and when accompanied by multiple layers of categories, sometime with the same media tagged on both upper and lower levels, the net result is extreme confusion, and far from the clarity that you say you are trying to achieve. I'm also uncertain as to why you would create pages for Commons media just to populate the categories that you are creating. The same applies to the lengthy and unencyclopaedic "how-to" passages that you are putting everywhere. As for this category, your continued tagging of images that explicitly exclude the West Bank and Gaza Strip makes is inconsistent even according to ChrisO's logic. To add to what 6SJ7, if such a category as this has the POV issues that it has, then there is no good reason for this category, when Category:Gaza Strip and Category:West Bank cover 99% of the images in question. Tewfik^Talk 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you ignore everything I wrote before, and then just repeat yourself, and go back to mass deletions and reversions. You have a long history of this. I refer you to my previous replies. I also refer you to the ruling by the admin ChrisO.

Also you are now adding the wrong template to maps:

Template:NowCommons

Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

You are adding that template to maps that are already on the commons.

I explained previously about wikipedia category pages that include commons maps. Let me clarify. When one put a commons map in a wikipedia category, one is NOT storing the map at wikipedia. It is still at the commons.

Look at one of the map pages where you incorrectly added the template: Image:Gz-map.gif. It says on the wikipedia map page, "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below."--Timeshifter 20:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to respond directly to these spurious claims. I pasted xaosflux's comments to your Talk, since you seem not to have seen my reference to them again. The sooner you take a step back and acknowledge that you might be doing something wrong, the easier it will be for everyone. Tewfik^Talk 20:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to those old comments of xaosflux on his talk page. He may have changed his mind since then. --Timeshifter 21:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it: "Palestinian territories" is a complicated and controversial term, as it is unclear what it means, what it is intended to cover, and what its origins are. So when a map of Israel within the 1949 armistice lines, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights is categorized as "Palestinian territories," it might be interpreted to include everything on the map. I have a hard time believing that's what anyone wants to imply, though surely that's what a lot of people will choose to infer, whether they're on one side or the debate or another. --Leifern 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map summary says:

Map of Israel, the Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip), the Golan Heights, and neighbouring countries. Modified and adapted from http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf . --Timeshifter 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is what ChrisO wrote. Tewfik^Talk 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As your diff points out ChrisO wrote "Map of Israel, the Occupied Territories and neighbouring countries. Modified and adapted from http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf . UN map" in his edit summary when he uploaded the map. The summary he later added to the image page was "Map of Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighbouring countries. Modified and adapted from http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf ."

I then updated the image summary further to

Map of Israel, the Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip), the Golan Heights, and neighbouring countries. Modified and adapted from http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf .

See this diff:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AIsrael.png&diff=4935620&oldid=4910696

--Timeshifter 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understood your point. I was just saying that using ChrisO's summary on the Commons as some sort of reason for why we should say the same thing here is circular, and proves nothing. Tewfik^Talk 00:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Palestinian territories" is a political POV term (rather than geographic) which varies from one party to another. While it is possible to note these differences in an article, it is impossible to do in a cat. Per WP:CAT: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Palestinian territories" has survived as the name of the wikipedia article. See Talk:Palestinian territories. That means it has survived many previous discussions among editors and admins. So it has survived WP:NPOV disputes.

I will link to the Palestinian territories article from the category page. I will also note that the phrase is highly disputed.

The maps in the category belong in the category. They are maps that include both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It is not disputed that those areas are part of what is called the Palestinian territories. The name "Palestinian territories" may be disputed. Maps of just the West Bank are in Category:Maps of the West Bank. Maps of just the Gaza Strip are in Category:Maps of Gaza Strip. --Timeshifter 01:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter: many "editors and admins" have indeed participated in these discussion - including me. Many WP articles describe political terms, and those articles are (or should be) NPOV, but we cannot change the terminology. The fact is, "Palestinian territories" are not a precise geographic term, and making such a category is not "self-evident and uncontroversial". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are not the West Bank and Gaza Strip part of the Palestinian territories? --Timeshifter 02:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are geographic terms and the Palestinian territories is a political term? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, do you understand that categorizing maps of Israel as the Palestinian territories is highly controversial to say the least? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many wikipedia maps are labeled at the top with the name of only one of the nations or territories on the map. Yet those maps are used on many wikipedia pages for many nations.

So why don't you tag world maps "Maps of the Palestinian territories" as well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't provide enough detail of the areas in question. --Timeshifter 02:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some wikipedia guidance

I see your point about the West Bank and Gaza Strip being geographic terms. "Palestinian territories" is both geographic and political. It is the most commonly-accepted name for its geographic area. Wikipedia uses the most common English names for geographic areas. Quotes follow.

From Palestinian territories:

The United Nations generally uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory", with the "Palestinian" label having gained use since the 1970s. ...

Between 1949 and 1967, these territories were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively, but the term "Palestinian territories" or "Occupied Palestinian Territories" gained wide usage after Israel's victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, about the same time as the term "Palestinian" first started to be used exclusively in respect to Arab population of Palestine.

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories):

For "of country" and "in country" categories, the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of the article about that country, with a lowercase "the" if needed for grammatical purposes. Non-sovereign, disputed, supranational, and historical countries and geographic equivalents may be included if the articles to be categorized require it.

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

From: Wikipedia:Naming conflict

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English. ...

International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc. ...

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

End of quotes. Please reply after quotes so as not confuse things. Thanks. --Timeshifter 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most common English-language reference to these territories is as either "West Bank and the Gaza Strip" or "the Israeli-occupied territories." "Palestinian territories" is, at best, third. I don't think what the UN says should really count in this case, because the UN is a participant in this dispute and not, as is their usual role, a neutral arbiter. The situation is even more complicated with eastern Jerusalem, which many maps (not sure about the ones in question) show as being part of the "West Bank", but as far as Israel is concerned it is part of Israel and is definitely not part of the "Palestinian territories." Of course the UN believes that Jerusalem is supposed to be an "international city", so they wouldn't include it in the "Palestinian territories" either, at least not if they are being consistent, which is never a safe thing to assume... but anyway... and then there is also the problem that to some people, Israel itself is (or should be) part of the "Palestinian territories", so when you include a map labeled "Israel" in a category called "Palestinian territories", no reason or excuse that you can think of will stop some people from suspecting that that is what you are implying. The overall problem here is that the names given to places are part of the larger dispute, which is why this whole area causes so many problems on Wikipedia. It is impossible to truly represent all POV's to everybody's satisfaction. At least in an article, an attempt can be made, and the text of an article can change from day to day (or minute to minute) without requiring a major structural change (such as renaming the article). You can't do that with a category -- the name is the name. Maybe the answer is not to have categories (like this one) that imply a particular viewpoint in the Israeli-Arab dispute. 6SJ7 18:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a category called "Maps of the Israeli-occupied territories" then? We need to settle on a name for this land grouping. So that the relevant maps can be categorized, and so that people can have a choice of maps to use for various wikipedia pages. Also, this category name would allow putting "Maps of the Golan Heights" or "Maps of the Golan" as a subcategory. --Timeshifter 02:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is "Maps of Israeli-held territories". --Timeshifter 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I express no opinion on those options at this time. However, in neither potential category could you place a map with a legend that says, simply, "Israel", even if it does show Israel and the disputed territories (my choice of term) in equivalent detail. 6SJ7 05:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Is there a logical reason not to? Is there a wikipedia guideline against it? It is done frequently with wikipedia maps titled after just one nation on the map. Those maps are in several map categories and on many wikipedia pages dealing with many nations.

From Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories do not form a tree:

"Categories do not form a tree. Each Wikipedia article can appear in more than one category, and each category can appear in more than one parent category. Multiple categorization schemes co-exist simultaneously. In other words, categories do not form a strict hierarchy or tree structure, but a more general directed acyclic graph (or close to it; see below)." [End of quote]

"Disputed territories" is the name of a higher map category: Category:Maps of disputed territories. So there needs to be more specificity in the category name. I think "Maps of Israeli-held territories" is specific, and seems to be the least objectionable category name for this land grouping. On the other hand we might be creating a new name. And the previous wikipedia guidelines say that we should use the most popular English-language name. ChrisO points out that the CIA map calls them "Israeli-occupied." See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cia-is-map2.gif --Timeshifter 09:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To resolve this confusion, I've replaced Image:Israel.png with Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png. (I created both versions of the map.) Please also see Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png for an explanation of the rationale for the map's creation and classification. -- ChrisO 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't solve the problem since we are discussing the file content and not its name. As others have said above, Palestinian territories is a highly charged term with varying interpretations. I don't see why the map, whatever it is called, cannot be tagged in the West Bank and Gaza Strip categories, since we generally defer discussions of geography to those accepted and clear terms. Tewfik^Talk 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a highly charged term to some people, but it is the most popular name for the combined geographical areas of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Wikipedia uses the most popular name.

Here are some day-old result totals for the Google phrase searches (see the next section):

68,800 - "israeli-occupied territories"

256 - "israeli-held territories"

1,260,000 - "palestinian territories"

"Palestinian territories" is far more popular when compared to either of the other names. So that has to be a map category. It might be possible to create a higher-level map category called "Maps of Israeli-occupied territories." Subcategories of it would be "Maps of the Palestinian territories" and "Maps of the Golan Heights." --Timeshifter 00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia does not use "the most popular name", but is rather governed by policies like NPOV. Tewfik^Talk 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

From Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Identification of common names using external references:

Identification of common names using external references.

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.

The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp .

From: Wikipedia:Naming conflict

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

See more info in the next section. --Timeshifter 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google popularity comparisons

Wikipedia guidelines say that we should use the most popular names for article and category titles.

Google searches for phrases when one puts quotes around the phrase.

See for yourself the popularity of various phrases by seeing the number of Google results for these phrase searches:

"Palestinian territories" is by far the most popular among these phrases. --Timeshifter 10:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Identification of common names using external references:

Identification of common names using external references.

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.

The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp .

--Timeshifter 10:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English wikipedia pages using a particular wikimedia commons map

An important reason for "placeholder" English wikipedia pages for wikimedia commons images is that the placeholder page lists all the English wikipedia pages using an image. The placeholder page also helps categorize images at English wikipedia. The image itself is not stored on English wikipedia servers. It is stored at the commons for use by various wikipedia sites that use various languages. This saves server space and is a big reason for having the wikipedia commons. Here is the current list below of English wikipedia pages using this map: Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png. The list can be found on that image placeholder page. That image will soon be replaced by this one, or one similar to it: Image:Is-wb-gs-gh.png.

   * History of Palestine
   * History of Israel
   * Yasser Arafat
   * Israeli-Palestinian conflict
   * Palestinian state
   * Oslo Accords
   * Palestinian refugee
   * Jewish exodus from Arab lands
   * Projects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs
   * 2000 Camp David Summit
   * Mahmoud Abbas
   * Road map for peace
   * Beirut Summit
   * East Jerusalem
   * Elon Peace Plan
   * Geneva Accord
   * History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
   * Israel's unilateral disengagement plan
   * Israeli peace camp
   * Palestine
   * Wye River Memorandum
   * Madrid Conference of 1991
   * Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
   * Taba Summit
   * Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics
   * Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum (1999)
   * Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron
   * Quartet on the Middle East
   * Realignment plan
   * Template:Israel-Palestinian Peace Process
   * Lieberman Plan
   * Israel

The placeholder page is created when categories are added to the page. The English placeholder page for a commons image is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:COMMONS_FILENAME

You can substitute any wikimedia commons filename in the above URL. Then click the link to see the placeholder page. The placeholder page is made permanent by adding categories to it.

You can see the commons image filenames by going to various commons categories.

For this particular map the current categories are Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories and Category:Maps of Israel.

The category code added to this placeholder page is:

[[Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories]]

[[Category:Maps of Israel]]

Images can be in multiple categories. --Timeshifter 21:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Palestinian territories"

About the name "Palestinian territories". Before trying to delete categories with that name in the category name please see the many pages and subcategories in Category:Palestinian territories. --Timeshifter 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That fizzled off when we all moved to discussing the specific map. As I said there, we use noncontroversial and factual terms (Category:Gaza Strip, Category:West Bank) in categorisation. Palestinian territories has multiple differing definitions, and is fraught with discussions of POV. Also, please stop creating image description pages of media on the Commons to populate your category.[1][2] The convention is to delete such pages after moving the images to the Commons, and not the reverse. Tewfik^Talk 21:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already had this discussion several times already. We do not delete the wikipedia image placeholder pages used for commons images. The commons image itself is stored at the commons. The wikipedia placeholder page provides info not provided by the commons page. Such as the list of all the wikipedia pages using the commons image. Also, it is part of wikipedia image classification in categories. If you have questions about map and image categorization please ask the authorities at Category talk:Maps and Commons:Category talk:Maps

See also the previous discussion on this talk page you are reading now. Also see abuse of speedy deletion by Jayjg and Image talk:Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png. This has all been thoroughly discussed before.

Comment For the record, the title of that AN/I that Timeshifter presented doesn't reflect the course it took in which ChrisO was on the defence, and Timeshifter was told "Enough with the inflamatory rhetoric. You must exhibit minimal restraint." by an uninvolved party. I have no wish to delve in the past, but we mustn't mischaracterise it either. Tewfik^Talk 06:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record; the near-consensus of the admins responding there was that Jayjg was wrong to delete the map created by ChrisO. My reply to the "inflammatory rhetoric" remark was: "I was using sarcastic humor. SlimVirgin was using inflammatory rhetoric. Do admins get a pass? But I will desist in using SlimVirgin's tactic, even in my twisted humorous form." I was parodying an admin's style of attack in which the admin implied that another admin was a terrorist supporter and anti-semitic by the selective use of diffs out of context. You mischaracterize the incident report discussion, and I urge people to read it. --Timeshifter 06:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what happened, and your answering doesn't change that your remarks were viewed as inflammatory etc. I do agree that anyone interested should read it. Tewfik^Talk 21:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian territories is a political, not a geographic term and therefore is incompatible with NPOV and WP:CAT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have already discussed this previously on this talk page. --Timeshifter 01:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is you trying to posting some Google results twice. As we've both mentioned before, Palestinian territories is a POV and charged term with vague definitions which adds nothing in terms of organisation, since you simply placed the Gaza Strip and West Bank categories under it. Tewfik^Talk 05:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete all categories and pages with the name 'Palestinian territories' in it then you have a lot of work to do convincing the many admins and editors who created those pages and categories. They have already had many discussions about meeting the wikipedia naming policies. See the many pages listed here: Category:Palestinian territories. Don't forget to check their subcategories, too. --Timeshifter 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether intentional or not, that is a strawman. I repeatedly said POV in terms of geography, and the only person to (recently, no less) create this category and the paradoxical "maps of the history of" category was you. I personally have created many of the Palestinian territory categories dealing with subject matter outside geography that is not disputed. If you've read the article and the caveats included there, then all of these points would be immediately obvious. Your creating even more image description pages for Commons media simply to populate your categories is also disruptive.[3][4] Just in case you missed it the last few times that I mentioned it, image description pages are deleted as part of the process of moving to the Commons. Tewfik^Talk 05:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained it to you several times. Wikipedia image placeholder pages are completely normal. They are found throughout the wikipedia categories. If you check some other wikipedia categories you would see that it is true. Image placeholder pages are not deleted when wikipedia images are moved to the commons. Only the wikipedia images are deleted. Since the image is now stored on the wikimedia commons servers. If, as you say, various Palestinian territories categories are OK, then so is Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories that actually shows what is being talked about in those categories. Just because you personally do not like the name "Palestinian territories" does not mean you get to delete or change category and article titles with that name in the title. I believe from reading your comments on other talk pages that you are Israeli. So you may have stronger feelings about this than others. But wikipedia requires that we set aside our POVs when editing wikipedia. The wikipedia naming policies require using the most popular names. WP:NPOV says that all significant POVs on any particular topic, title, or name are expressed inside the articles. But we still use the most popular names. Because otherwise people are less likely to find the articles, and to know what we are talking about. An encyclopedia discusses what is, not what should be. --Timeshifter 07:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "what is, not what should be": Timeshifter is engaging in historical revisionism here. The term "Palestinian territories" was not in wide use before 1967. Even the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 used the terminology "Samaria and Judea". As WP:CAT states: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. "Palestinian territories" is the common name now. As to what the name should be, that is not up to wikipedia to decide. Wikipedia uses the common name. The current maps in the category belong in the category. It is noted in the article and the category that the name is disputed. --Timeshifter 03:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter, if the "placeholders", as you call them, are not deleted when images are moved to the Commons, then why exactly do they not exist until you create them by adding categories? Furthermore, do you even realise that in one breath you acknowledge that I don't oppose "Palestinian territory" categories in nongeographic cases (and as I said, I was influential in creating many of them), and then accuse me of trying to delete this category because I don't like the term? Instead of throwing around accusations of POV, why don't you actually comment on the substance of the discussion: Do you disagree that the geographic definitions of Palestinian territories are disputed (as the entry makes plain), and that the subject matter was previously contained in undisputed geographical designations of Gaza Strip and West Bank, a convention in place for quite some time across many pages? Tewfik^Talk 21:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on an image in a wikipedia page, then the wikipedia placeholder page always shows up. Try it and see. Adding a category link to that wikipedia placeholder page puts the image in that wikipedia category. "Palestinian territories" is the common name for the combination of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The geography is clear for all 3 names. And all 3 names are the common names. The politics of the overall name does not change the fact that it is the common name. --Timeshifter 03:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that Palestinian territories can be defined as either the Gaza Strip and West Bank, or as the area governed by the Palestinian National Authority? Tewfik^Talk 06:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian territories commonly refers to the combination of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Just like Hawaii refers to a specific group of island lands. Or the Bahamas, etc.. The Palestinian National Authority has only existed since 1994. The name "Palestinian territories" has been around much longer. "The United Nations generally uses the term 'Occupied Palestinian Territory', with the 'Palestinian' label having gained use since the 1970s." That is from the Palestinian territories article. --Timeshifter 07:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the rationale for one of the meanings. So since you read the article, you also acknowledge that it opens with "The designation typically refers to the territories governed by the Palestinian Authority or includes all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip."? Tewfik^Talk 08:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Israeli fundamentalist, right-wing definition versus the UN, and Israeli center-left, definition. Wikipedia tends to go with the common, more popular, definition. That being the UN definition. --Timeshifter 09:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]