File talk:Davids-kingdom.jpg

Possible deletion of this image on WP:RS grounds is discussed here. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• no grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.116.232 (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• I am against this deletion. Regardless of the source, this map is similar to other maps on the subject, and the author authorized its use in Wikipedia. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• The actual discussion is over here. Re Emmanuelm's argument, there is not one map in your Google search that remotely corroborates this one. (Admittedly, I only checked the first 500 links). MeteorMaker (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. The maps are very similar. There's ambigiuty about the actual place surrounding the Euphrates from the west and northern west. The map says "estimate", that's enough for WP:RS for pictures in wikipedia. Amoruso (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

They are not similar at all, unless you count the multiple instances of this map as several different ones. For instance, no other map claims that David's kingdom encompassed a good part of southern Turkey, along with the Mediterranean coast. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That small part (it's not "for instance", it's the only slight difference you could find and it's frivolous and not supported by anything but your WP:OR) doesn't change the fact they're very similar. Amoruso (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just saying they are very similar doesn't make it so. The size of the kingdom on your map in fact differs by roughly 100% from the other maps you linked to. These are the relevant ones on the first two pages of your Google search, please show me one that claims the kingdom encompassed anything at all of the coastline north of Hamath (which is what the only available source, the Bible, gives as the northern boundary), let alone large parts of Turkey.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] MeteorMaker (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All very similar, thanks for the links. The map lists the area some prefer to list as Vassal/kingdoms under control/affiliated, in the same color. That's perfectly all right. This map you posted [8] including the allied kingdom is in fact exact 1:1. Amoruso (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If by "similar" you mean "showing an area at most half the size of what your map claims", yes, but I doubt you can convince anybody with the brains to click a link. You seem to have redefined "kingdom" to include allies as well, which is tantamount to claiming Israel is part of the United States (or vice versa). Please give up now and understand that your claims have been thoroughly refuted. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest, instead of using personal attacks, to explain in the caption that the map also showed an allied kingdom. Although it was explained to you, that altough rare, many maps do show part of Turkey as part of the kingdom - quote from AnonMoos- "Actually, they have sometimes produced maps that look something like this one (see p. 36 of the Anchor Atlas of World History by Kinder and Hilgemann, ISBN 0-385-06178-1, or p. 13 of Atlas of the Bible Lands by Harry Thomas Frank, ISBN 0-8437-7055-4, to mention only sources that I happen to have immediately at hand)" -- "Amoruso (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder where you see personal attacks? Re your AnonMoos quote, it's common practice to include a link so it can be checked for accidental truncations that may change the meaning. As it happens, it continues:

-- though it's true that such maps very rarely include any significant territory in modern Turkey. Look, I'm quite sympathetic towards the view that a map which does not distinguish between the centrally-administered and Israelite-inhabited areas of the United Monarchy vs. the areas of loose personalistic overlordship or nominal tribute-paying can easily give a misleading view of history, and is almost worthless for most purposes in Wikipedia.

It's quite true that this map indiscriminately mixes areas which were directly-ruled parts of the early Israelite kingdom (mostly inhabited by Israelites, royally-appointed administrators present, etc.) with areas where there was a very loose suzerainty or personal overlordship at most.

Emphasis mine. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Map modified on May 12 2008 by MeteorMaker, with Amoruso's permission. Now considerably less controversial. The request for deletion has been removed. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Two months later: Amoruso restores the factually incorrect version of the map, claiming he has never given permission to alter it.

Contrary to his recollection, he has in fact given permission no less than four times: [9]

• "if you disagree with a small part of the map, just state it under the picture or alternatively you can edit the picture and post it again. Since it's in commons it's possible to do that. I can get permission for that too. Take initiative and color that northern part if you like. "
• "If you think they got that some small part of Turkey wrong, then by all means you can add tag to clarify or edit the picture."
• "And you can paint brush it if you feel it's a bit too much into turkey."
• "Btw, that small area in Turkey you can paint away with paintbrush if you don't like it."

In addition, he has stated (on this talk page and other places) that the difference between his original map and several online ones is negligible. The corrected version, being a synthesis of those maps (detailed in the link above), should thus not suddenly be unacceptable to him. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not contrary to my recollection. I remember very well my mistaken permission. But I was wrong - the changes you made infringe on the moral right of the copyright image. It is not allowed to change the picture. Your distorted map was also WP:OR. You moved cities around, for example in most sources, Damascus is part of the direct kingdom. The map is correct, and the only problem is lack of distinction between the kingdom and the vassal states. I suggest rewriting the caption to explain that. Amoruso (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's released under CC2, so it can indeed be edited and corrected. There is no such thing as a "moral copyright" on a map anyway. The corrected version is a textbook WP synthesis of secondary sources, as explained on the linked page:

As Amoruso suggests above and here, I have now modified the map to make it conform with established science. It is now a synthesis of four different online maps that Amoruso has presented as equivalents to the disputed map: [10] [11] [12] [13] plus one (A) where I have, without having had access to a reliable source, included the Tipsah = Carcemish hypothesis favored by Amoruso and others.

Damascus wasn't "moved around", it wasn't even on the original map, and if you claim it was part of the central kingdom you have to show sources. The only part with some OR in it was that I had to add the Carchemish=Tiphsah hypothesis you favored, since I have not been able to find such a map on the Net or elsewhere. I can remove that hypothesis (labeled A on the corrected map) if you don't think it belongs there. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One hour later: Instead of discussing or trying to build consensus, Amoruso has now resorted to edit warring. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing wiki projects. This doesn't belong here, I'm not edit warring - you are. There's no need for any consensus to upload pictures or maintain them the way they were uploaded on other projects. I have no problem with your A. If you move Damascus to the direct kingdom, like here [14], here [15], here [16], , here [17], and any other map, I'll agree, provided that you also removed the wording "Various interpreations"... we never agreed to put any ugly wording into the image. It should also have kept "At the time of his death". Btw, the empire lasted from 1050, not 1000. You need to keep the original wording. We should also make a duplicate file. You can make a copy and upload it. The original stays in wikimedia. Amoruso (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy to say I did all that. You can fix the colors of the painting. I removed Damascus. Amoruso (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see 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). It also seems unlikely that King David's empire could have lasted from a decade before David was even born, so if you could find a cite for your claim, it would be helpful. Until then, we stick with the established 1,000BCE.

The present version of the map suffers from excessive compression artefacts, so I have made the changes you suggested and made a new file from my original, which I will upload shortly. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. You know this page here where you're discussing doesn't really exist, but if you didn't read my comments there, I said "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". Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The kingdom began before David. Saul created it. David did expand it, but that's exactly the problem of your dating - it seems as if there wasn't anything before or anything after... that's why the original map says one point that this was true, that the borders were like this. Putting in a start date and an end date of something that it is not the united monarchy can be misleading you see. Amoruso (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First: The way this discussion has spread over multiple pages makes it very unwieldy to maintain. Here is the current list: [18][19][20][21][22][23]

Second: There is already a perfectly good map of the United Kingdom, made by AnonMoos[24], which is generally used on the same pages as this one. The empire was a more short-lived entity than the (much smaller) kingdom. You wouldn't say it's correct to write "Soviet Union" on a map of 19th century Russia, to make a similar example. Or should we perhaps delete the name "David" from the caption?

Third: We have agreed to remove Damascus from the map, not because it was incorrectly placed, but because you insist the border of the kingdom proper should be pushed further to the north, claiming maps from sites like "Bible Doctrine for the Spiritual Life" and "Church of God Daily Bible Study" as proof. If you look closely at the ones that conform better with established science, like number 3 on your list, you will find that Damascus is indeed in a dominion, not in the kingdom proper. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's united monarhcy, not kingdom. AnonMoos' map is something different. It's the from Dan to Beersheva reference. And Damascus is the kingdom proper also in that map. It's been conquered from the original kingdom. The original kingdom is Saul's kingdom. So even your unreferenced statement about "better conform with science" is not true. Damascus was one of the areas conquered by David obviously. The original kingdom was Saul's then made larger by David and then it became an Empire with more conquered regions. This is all referenced in all the maps. Amoruso (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)