File talk:Davids-kingdom.jpg

  As Amoruso, the uploader of the original and disputed map, suggests here and here, I have now modified the map to make it conform with established science. It is now a synthesis of three different online maps that Amoruso has presented as equivalents to the disputed map: [1] [2] [3] [4] plus one (A) where I have, without having had access to a reliable source, included the Tipsah = Carcemish hypothesis favored by Amoruso and others. Some relevant place names have been added and others moved to more accurate locations. MeteorMaker 16:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It was my mistake. Apparently there was never a permission to change the file, and changing is a violation of the copyright, especially moral rights, of the creator. Therefore I restored it. Like mentioned, this is wikimedia and there is nothing wrong with the image. No concensus was even established in wikipedia that the image is factually wrong in any way. Here in wikimedia, AnonMoos clarified in the debate that the map is possible and looks similar to some other maps. The only thing agreed upon was that some areas were not directly controlled but were controlled by vassal states. This can be added in captions in wikipedia if Meteormaker wants. No grounds to delete from wikimedia. This debate doesn't belong here. Btw, the map Meteormaker alterted was also factually wrong. For example, Damascus was placed wrongly, seemingly in purpose outside of the kingdom. Amoruso (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If it was validly released under the "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License", then there MUST BE permission to change the file (see under "remix" at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ ). If it was not validly released under the the "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License", then it needs to be deleted pronto. Furthermore, there were a lot more problems with the first version of the file than with the second version. AnonMoos (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, which is why I initially said there was permission. Thinking it over though, I realized this condition "Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights" - the changes were so extreme and from what I believe, this damages that moral right of the author. Also there's the watermark issue. If I understand correctly, AnonMoos, the only real problem is the lack of distinction between the kingdom and the vassal states. This distinction is not made in many other maps available on the web, and can be made through the captions in wikipedia. Amoruso (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Damascus

First issue: Damascus is placed wrongly in Meteormaker's version. It's always placed in Israel in all other maps: [5], here [6], here [7], , here [8], here [9]. There's also excessive use of wording on the picture. You need to leave it "David's Kingdom", not all that polemic wording. Amoruso (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wording

Second issue: Restore the original wording about King David's Empire (remove "various interpretations...")

Make 2 copies

Meteormaker, understand that this is a free file too. You don't want to use it in wikipedia - don't. It stays in wikimedia. Make another file. Don't vandalize mine. Amoruso (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I did this myself. Colors can be fixed. I removed Damascus. Amoruso (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This map has generated an unholy number of discussions, spread over numerous pages [10][11][12][13][14]. I am happy to see that we finally agree on the main points: that the map must make a distinction between the kingdom proper and the dominions, and that it should not frivolously include Israel-sized chunks of Turkey. If you're not happy with the location of a city that has been in the exact same spot for nearly 7,000 years, it can be removed from the map with no great loss. (None of your maps show it in any other location btw, if you claim it was part of David's kingdom proper, you have to show sources). There is no "polemic wording" in my version, it depicts David's empire and nothing else. FWIW, you have not changed it in your version[15] either. I don't agree 100% that the "various interpretations of the extent of" caption should be removed, because there is a definite risk that the different alternatives become misinterpreted as one unit. I have made the (reasonable) changes you suggested and made a new file from my original, which I will upload shortly. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just one note: I did change it. The "various interpretations" is something that belongs in captions, not in images. You also got the date wrong. I always agreed that the map contained both vassal kingdoms and direct kingdom. All the maps I've shown show that Damascus was part of the direct kingdom, so why say otherwise? All the maps shows it was part of David Kingdon's proper. Anyway, I'm glad we're in agreement. Amoruso (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The date (c1000BCE - c930BCE) is pretty well-established. I doubt you can find sources that say it lasted longer or was created earlier (unlike the United Kingdom/Monarchy, which was established some few decades earlier, but as I've said, it has its own map already). Not even Jerusalem was part of the kingdom before 1000BCE, so it would be highly incorrect to state that this map is valid before that point in time.

Good to see that we agree on the main points and that you don't feel my corrections of "your" (ie Bible-history.com's) map amount to vandalism any more, though. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I do actually. Don't add ugly wording to the image, like the wrong dates you want to enter,as it fringes on the moral rights of the owner. Amoruso (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)