Talk:Borders of India

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 September 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

India: Geography High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup.

More information:
/
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	This article was last assessed in March 2019.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

South Asia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 willing to be flexible and collaborate (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 the content, growth or enhancement 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)[reply]

All that you have currently done is thrown a lot of WP:ASPERSIONS, so please be careful with your wording. What I meant with IMO is my rationale behind removing the content, so please don't jump to a conclusion and run with it (See WP:POV more details). I again reiterate that the page is about Borders of India so I see how border crossings can be connected (although a huge section of that content is unsourced and probably should go). I have also looked at articles in the related space like Borders of the United States and Borders of China and the scope of these pages which is limited as the name suggests. I believe you have an issue with connecting what content belongs in a given page. What I see currently is unnecessary content inflation which is also occurring with you adding unnecessary See Also's everywhere. Please gain consensus here before adding your content since another editor also removed it. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pok/Azad Kashmir

@Adamgerber80: Since the article is about India's borders, and Indian border with Afghanistan is here because India's claim on full Kashmir, shouldn't we use the official term used by India for Pakistan administered Kashmir? A term used by Pakistan is IMO not appropriate here. I will also settle for Pakistan administered Kashmir or Pakistan held Kashmir but PoK is my first preference. Ankit2 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankit2: Both Azad Kashmir and Pakistan administered Kashmir are acceptable terms. PoK is not. Just for clarification, POK or IOK are not acceptable terms on an article whether it is about India or Pakistan. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Border with Afghanistan

India has made a claim on whole of Kashmir, through which it also shares a boundary with Afghanistan. This is not internationally recognised. None of these is a false statement. An article about the borders of India should contain all relevant information about them including claims. Ankit2 (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are ICP and LCS?

This article lists ICP (Integrated Check Posts) and LCS (Land Customs Stations). But what are they? Are they different types of border crossings? In which case what is the difference? Are they the only type of border crossings, or are their others? Are there any restrictions on crossing India's borders? Can I just walk or drive across the border wherever and whenever I want (assuming I have travel documents), or am I committing a crime (what crime?) if I cross somewhere that isn't a border crossing, ICP or LCS?

Please, this needs explaining TiffaF (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this pointless article

How does a list of random border crossings add anything of value that cannot be found on the individual 'country X-India Border' pages?? I'd say delete this article altogether and merge what useful content there is into the separate border pages.WisDom-UK (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]