Talk:Borders of India

Incorrect map

The map India is incorrect you, this is Wikipedia where millions of people come and acknowledge the things, the map of jammu and kashmir is incorrect, gilgit baltistan and PaK are not part of india Subcontinent studies (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Please have a look at the context of the page. Those are the borders claimed by India. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding border ceremonies to the page

Hi @202.156.182.84:, I have raised a concern about adding border ceremonies to this page. IMO, this page is about the borders of India and not the border ceremonies. Independent pages for those exist and if not then they should be included in the respective border pages, not here. Please provide your rationale here. Currently, your comments indicate you are depicting WP:OWN which is not ideal. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Adamgerber80:
Rationale:
A. 90% of this article is my work. I have created various sections of this article, including (A.1) Maritime borders of India, (A.2) Border bazaars and haats, (A.3) Designated crossings with ICP & LCS, etc. These sections have stood the test of time in this article by remaining here for long enough. These sections are similar to the "border ceremonies section" I had added recently. Hence, there is precedence already for retaining this type of sections in this article. Same rationale applies to the "border ceremonies section" (reverted twice by you) as well. I had cleaned up and condensed the section in my second edit but you reverted again with no attempt to collaborate, enhance or rephrase. true spirit of wikipedia is to "collaborate" by enhancing.
B. You used the words IMO, that is just POV, I find it highly disruptive, unproductive and wasteful.
C. Going by your POV logic that "this page is about the borders of India and not the border ceremonies", section A.1, A.2. and A.3 would have not survived in this article for so long (already passed the "survivability test of time and review by other editors/visitors") because those are included on the same rationale. With your revert, you are going against the precedence and nature of the existing content. Further more, your logic that individual "articles already exists" is invalid and defies the goodfaith and collaborative spirit of wikipedia. Wiki guidelines encourage the growth of content and consolidation of various related topics in one central place where appropriate (e.g. pipelink, lists of lists, "theme centric" articles linking to other articles). The best place to consolidate the "border ceremonies of India" is the "border of India" article instead of separate article. By your logic that individual articles exist on those ceremonies, I counter it by saying that individual articles on the borders itself also exist, so there would be no need to have this whole article. Your argument contradicts the rationale and precedence behind this whole article.
D. Issue here is not about who owns it. No one owns it. It is about the who is a contributing and productive editor (which I have been on this article, 90% content in the past over several months, article belongs to the masses) versus who is being a disruptive editor without contributing to this article (you). I left a note on your talkpage that your behavior indicates you have been disruptiv without making an attempt to collaborate. You did not even use goodfaith, otherwise you would have tried to reorgansie/condense/rephrase my recent edits or at least discuss it on the talkpage instead of the repeated reverts. Because reverts should be used for the vandalism (protect wikipedia) and not for the subjective IMO/POV (disruptive use of reverts). I also noticed multiple other antagonized editors have warned you recently on your talkpage. Please do not make it a habit. Our time is best utilized in creating content by collaborating. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)