File talk:India-locator-map-blank.svg

---

Uttaranchal

Seeing this map gives me the impression that northern parts of Uttaranchal are also disputed and part of it administered by China. Is it true? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who controls the middle sector at the moment. I do remember reading about them in the newspapers a long time back, and I think China controls them. I haven't found any references online to support this as yet. There's also a disputed portion in Himachal. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

confusing aspects

The legend and boundaries confuse me; Where on the map is the dash-dot line for the international undisputed boundary and where is the smaller dash-dot line for disputed boundaries? What is the solid black line around most of the country (including some of the disputed parts)?--ragesoss 20:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments:

1. I've fixed the boundary. I had it changed on the map after Sukh had requested it. I had forgotten to update the image.
2. The disputed boundaries are in Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh. It may not look very clear on the thumbed version, but if you were to look at it at full resolution, the borders can be clearly discerned. If I were to make it clearly visible for smaller resolutions, large parts of the borders would have to be unmarked between the dots. I would put this as a technical issue, which cannot be resolved.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 06:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Jammu Kashmir as shown in the map is not correct. Kindly change the map immediately.

Arunachal Pradesh is a part of India

Arunachal Pradesh is recognized as a part of India by every country in the world except China. The UN recognizes it as part of India. The dispute over Arunachal Pradesh is manufactured solely by China so I see no merit in recognizing it as disputed. If Pakistan starts considering Bangladesh as part of itself, would you mark Bangladesh as disputed too (obviously the entire world considers Bangladesh an independent country). I urge you to edit the image asap to reflect the status of Arunachal Pradesh as Indian territory. user:Sohola

Please cite sources which claim that every country recognises Arunachal Pradesh as a part of India. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that no article (in this case a map) has a single point of view (See: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The fact that China lays claim to Arunachal Pradesh at this point of time means that the status is disputed. The correct procedure would be to label AP as claimed by China, administered by India as it reflects both points of view and is accurate. I'm afraid the map cannot be edited to potray just India's point of view unless China gives up claim over AP. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your own references are proof enough. It is interesting that you cited two sources that clearly shows Arunachal Pradesh as part of India but ironically you chose to create a map that shows Arunachal Pradesh as disputed. I am not sure what gave you the idea that Arunachal Pradesh is internationally recognized as a disputed region. Please cite a source. Only Kashmir is recognized by UN as a disputed area. You dont have to give me a sermon on neutrality. I am well aware of the need for it. However my understanding is that the international community decides what is disputed and what is not. A single country's unilateral claim can hardly qualify anything to be disputed. If otherwise, then potentially almost every article in wikipedia lacks neutrality. Neutrality is defined by concensus; A single country's claim is not concensus. Furthermore, there were never any Chinese present in Arunachal Pradesh. The entire native population of Arunachal Pradesh is of Indo-Burmese hill tribe descent following either Vaishnavism or Buddhism. I dont see any substance in China's claim that Arunachal is part of China.user:Sohola

Just to clarify things: I'd cited one source, not two. NDTV is a credible news channel, and it mentions that China still lays claim to Arunachal Pradesh, which makes it disputed. I don't think I need to cite more sources, the onus should be on you to prove another country's claim does not make it disputed. Secondly, I'm not sure what international community you speak of gives absolute credance to disputed or undisputed territories. Disputes over territories are usually bilateral (sometimes even more than 2), and it's not for some third party to give a 'certificate of dispute' to. I'm still not sure why you refuse to acknowledge the fact that China laying claim to Arunachal Pradesh does makes the territory disputed. An apt analogy would be a Venn diagram model of intersecting areas. I do believe that I had to point you to the NPOV (a sermon as you put it) as you had not got the idea of neutrality. But from your second post, potentially almost every article in wikipedia lacks neutrality, you have hit the nail on the head getting to learn about the macro concept of wikipedia, where every article may lack neutrality. It's our goal to write neturally written articles (or maps). You not seeing any substance to China's claim is hardly the point here, it is the ground situation that matters. Bottom line, the map will not be changed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about your references for the map (ones from utexas) not the references in your message. Anyway, I wont pursue this any further. Let the map be as it is. However I would like to point out that for a neutral, you do have some strong autocratic tendencies - "Bottom line, the map will not be changed", does sign off in a way that is revealing of your character. I hope you realize that in wikipedia, anybody can change anything anytime. No you dont own anything - not even the map that you created. user:Sohola

I don't see why you wish to indulge in character assasination and I am least bothered by what you wish to call me. If you wish to raise the neutrality issue, please do so on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

All I pointed out was your autocratic talk. If any character assasination occurred it was because of your own words not mine (I certainly dont have time or the inclination for name calling). I hope the futility of your reasoning is evident when you consider that Al-Qaeda unilaterally claims many countries to be "infidel" states. If you are true to your neutrality, why dont you edit the pages of all those countries to reflect their status as "infidel" apart from its usual; Something like: "Considered federal republic by the government and UN but considered infidel state by Al-Qaeda". And why have a map of Israel at all - it is not recognized by its neighbors as a country! My point is - neutrality is defined by concensus. Al-Qaeda calling you infidel doesnt make you an infidel and NPOV definitely doesnt require you to accomodate that. user:sohola

I still don't see how mentioning "revealing of your character" has any direct bearings of the discussion here. Secondly your logical reasoning comparing the Al Quida and China is completely false. A nation-state claiming sovereignty over territory and a small organisation refusing to acknowledge the existance of a nation are not the same, although I don't see what's wrong in mentioning that the existence of Israel are not recognised by some Arab countries and organisations. (This is what we call NPOV). It's ludicrous that you call my "futility of reasoning is evident" with such phrases. Lastly I don't know what countries you speak of have come to the conclusion that AP is an integral part of India, or if there is any international resolution on the same to merit your statement for consensus. Take a look at [1] and [2] =Nichalp «Talk»= 23:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Arunachal Pradesh is a part of india and that is being recognized by almost every country. Show me any proof of countries (other than China) saying that it is disputed.

Request you to tone down your language. Territorial disputes are bilateral and not for other countries to give a certificate of dispute to. I don't need to give you any further proof than I have above. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Many countries dont recognize other's territories for political and historical reasons. I agree with you when you mark Kashmir as disputed. But not Arunachal. For that matter tens of countries dont recognize israel. So why dont you mark the whole israel as disputed? India does not recognize Tibet as part of China. SO why dont you mark Tibet as disputed? user:Leotolstoy. 15th August, 9:26 EST.

You're missing the point here: Unlike Israel or Tibet, Arunachal Pradesh is territory disputed between two nations. An analogy would be a Venn diagram. I don't see why you should "personally" ask me to mark Israel as disputed, we're discussing the map here, not the political status of other countries. See my remark in an above thread. Next, India has recognised Tibet as a part of China [3], so I don't see how this qualifies as equal to Arunachal Pradesh's status. Claimed territory as soverign soil and non-recognition of a territory are two different things altogether and cannot be equated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV Policy is non-negotiable. The current maps of India and China, as they appear on Wikipedia, are the results of a tacit understanding between Indian and Chinese Wikipedians: we have agreed to cooperate in following Wikipedia's NPOV policy and to present our complex border dispute comprehensively.

As Nichalp has said, as the dispute is bilateral, no more "proof" is needed than the stances of the two countries involved. If India started claiming Tibet tomorrow, we would mark it. If China started claiming all of seven northeastern states, we would mark it. If India started claiming Beijing and Shanghai, and China started claiming Delhi and Mumbai, we would also mark it too. -- ran (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all its a locator map. It does not have to be THAT accurate. If you are having a map on territorial dispute then this kind of detail is needed. Also this TACIT understanding sickens me. Unfortunitely maybe that is the only solution. It shows some of te weaknesses of wikipedia (wikiality??) User:Leotolstoy. Also it would be great if somebody can answer my question on Aksai Chin's discussion page.

It does not have to be THAT accurate – Accuracy and neutrality is something an we must strive to achieve in Wikipedia. I'm sorry if you feel otherwise. I'm also sorry for you being sick about us agreeing to maintain wikipedia's policies. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Then why not the chinese map here is not properly annotated??? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xizang_Autonomous_Region%2C_China) (It marks areas under Indian rule claimed by China, but not areas iruled by India claimed by India ). I observed same kind of maps in all chinese provinces websites. Does these maps follow NPOV??. User:Leotolstoy.

There's a template for this purpose: {{POV-map}}. If you feel that it does not adhere to wikipedia neutrality standards, please add this to the image page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Did that. I have tagged a few chinese maps (which did not show aksai chin as a disputed region) and also tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chinese_provinces/Locator_maps.

You'd also need to cite a valid reason on the talk page to which you include the template. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I have added a section "Areas disputed by India are not marked". Is that good enough?

I've fixed all of them. -- ran (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This India map has been deliberately drawn to favor China's political agenda of claiming Indian land as its own. The way the maintainers of this map are proliferating and maintaining its usage, it raises suspicion of organized communist activism. Both Indian communists and certain radical Chinese wiki members seem to be at work here. A botched definition of neutrality and misrepresentation of facts seem to be the method used here. This subversive effort definitely needs to be monitored.

Any other conspiracy theories? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Districts

Is there a version of this map with districts? Sarayuparin 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is. See any state map. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sikkim and Goa

I'm sure I won't be popular with the people complaining about Arunchal Pradesh being shown as disputed, but...

Shouldn't the status of Sikkim also be disputed as it was annexed unilaterally by India and the government in exile has not recognized Indian sovereignty?

Regarding Goa in this line, I believe Portugal did finally recognize the annexation, but it should be confirmed that this was a formal and not just de facto recognition.