Commons:Deletion requests/File:BritishMandatePalestine1920.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Original research. The map implies that Palestine and Transjordan were under some sort of unified government, which is not true at all. They were just administered under that name and Transjordan was autonomous. The Wikipedia article British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) has several quotations that prove that there is a great distinction between the two states. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that? That you have trouble interpreting a map is not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having trouble interpreting a map? How about you reply to my points instead of initiating personal attacks? --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a valid reason for deletion? In the map both Palestine and Transjordan are clearly marked. Please see Commons:Deletion policy and then describe under what reason it should be deleted. // Liftarn (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ːClearly marked "British Mandate" too. Do any historical source use this kind of map? Are you aware that the unified mandate barely lasted months, and barely meant anything, while this map implies otherwise? --Makeandtoss (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep - Transjordan was quasi-autonomous after Abdullah of the Hashemites was installed in 1921. However, 1920 is before 1921... AnonMoos (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The major problem with this map (which you didn't point out) is that parts of the Golan should be included before 1923. AnonMoos (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." I don't think this map is educational, rather propagandic. This is poor quality; Golan Heights borders are wrong, Aqaba borders are wrong, the Egypt-Palestine border is unrealistically straight (perhaps the other straight lines too), etc.. --Makeandtoss (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep - Makeandtoss' original concerns have been addressed. Adding a bunch of new things you don't like about the map makes you seem a bit insincere. In any case, those supposed issues could easily be rectified which I would welcome. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 19:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Wikimedia Commons does not have a prohibition on original research (missed that before). AnonMoos (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. (Why is this listed separately from the svg version?) This "map" is mostly mythological. To start with, there was no place called "British Mandate of Palestine"; in 1920 there was only a draft document called "British Mandate for Palestine" that came into effect in 1923. Of the borders shown on the map, only the border with Egypt is reasonably accurate for 1920. All of the other borders were determined later. The story behind this map is quite simple: people of a particular political bent like to imagine contrary to historical fact that this whole area was "promised to the Jews" and then later stolen away from them. On Wikipedia we can do better. Zero0000 (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see how things really looked in 1920–1922, check out the Times Atlas of the World published in 1922. A guess at the vague Palestine/Syria-Lebanon border from the 1920 agreement is shown, but Transjordan is not demarcated except on the north. That's how it was at the time; pretending that the east and south boundaries existed already is a big mistake. This deceptive map should be deleted so that it won't be accidentally used in articles. Zero0000 (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: widely used. --INeverCry 00:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]