Template talk:Partition Plan-Armistice Lines comparison map legend

The descriptive text is quite wrong. See discussion at [1] ... talknic (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose User:Talknic's proposed wording changes based on his speculative personal theories... AnonMoos (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You oppose and wish to keep WP:OR? Entirely against your own criteria? This Legend is NOT in WikiMedia Commons and the the text in the legend is un-sourced WP:OR or speculative personal theory.

Meanwhile, the discussion shows I have not proposed wording changes based on anything 'speculative' or theoretical. Although Primary Sources may not be acceptable in Wikipedia, they are neither speculative or theoretical. To that end, I have propose that secondary sources be found and gave Primary Sources as a basis for finding Secondary Sources that do NOT speculate, but faithfully reflect the key Primary Source documents ... talknic (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, dude -- why don't you read again my comment of "07:26, 22 October 2011" on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, and this time actually make an attempt to understand it? Meanwhile your abstract theoretical metaphysical hypothetical speculations on documents such as provisional Israeli battlefield communiqué, based solely on your personal involuted navel-gazing contemplation, is far more "Original Research" than anything contained in the map image File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png. AnonMoos (talk)

AnonMoos -- A) WP:CIVIL B) Nothing you said at "07:26, 22 October 2011" makes any difference to the fact that A) the legend is NOT on WikiMedia or the fact that the text to the legend is un-sourced, WP:OR ... talknic (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the other page: "Short brief phrases used as map captions really do not lend themselves to being footnoted. Such captions can be wrong or right, helpful or unhelpful, when used in combination with a particular map image and a particular Wikipedia article; however, a demand for footnotes borders on the absurd. If you think the captions are wrong or unhelpful, then by all means point this out; however, a demand that footnotes be added to [this template] is not very realistic, and doesn't help to resolve anything."

And I remain really quite unimpressed by your invocation of the dreaded acronym "OR", since what's there now is actually far less "original research" than what you want to replace it with... AnonMoos (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally was able to understand that there was a somewhat legitimate objection on your part to the word "borders", which I replaced with the word "boundaries" -- your comments were of little help in singling out this issue in a clear and specific manner... AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map legend is still incorrect. Suggest it be addressed per RS secondary Sources accurately reflecting the Armistice Agreements. As above "This Legend is NOT in WikiMedia Commons and the the text in the legend is un-sourced WP:OR or speculative personal theory"
The legend should be based on RS Secondary Sources accurately reflecting the any Armistice Agreements they cite talknic (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I do not know what the debate can possibly be here. I thoroughly agree with talknic that the Legend is farcical.

Greg Kaye 12:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015[edit]

AnonMoos, I would like to ask three questions for clarification:

how is it that the legend under title: "Boundaries defined in the UN partition plan of 1947: ... Area assigned for an Arab state;" does not include the four colours: red, pink, grey and green?
If the colours Green and pink are labelled as "Arab territory until 1967" how are they defined now?
Can you provide a citation / reference to the old city of Jerusalem (a location on the Palestinian side of the Green Line) as being defined as part of Israel?

Greg Kaye 12:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) Because gray-and-magenta area was allocated to the Corpus separatum (Jerusalem), which was not part of either the Jewish or the Arab state in the original partition plan.

2) I don't care (in relation to this map), because File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.svg and its related images cover at most three years (1947-1950).

3) The map is not intended to show east Jerusalem as part of 1949 Israel in the armistice lines. The gray area is west Jerusalem. The Jewish quarter of the Old city is barely large enough to show up on this map at all... AnonMoos (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos

Thank you that was really helpful. I have done some reorderings of content etc. here but thought you might like a look. Greg Kaye 16:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations of the map[edit]

For limitations of the basic map in the image, see notes at File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png... AnonMoos (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]