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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.154.212 (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

On Arunachal Pradesh

Hi, I noticed the way this map depicts Arunachal Pradesh while reading another article on wikipedia and was surprised to see that the map chooses to highlight China's claim to the state, which prompted to come to the talk page and see why that decision had been made. Reading through the debate here, I noticed some things which are concerning.

The editor's argument here was that because China lays a claim to Arunachal Pradesh, it is "disputed", and because it is disputed it should automatically be depicted as such. While previous commentators unfortunately did not do the best job of framing their objections, I have to say that I agree with those commentators that the editor's is argument is flawed on both counts. That the editor nevertheless stuck to his own opinion has resulted in a map which is noticeably out of line with standard practices on the rest of wikipedia and among reputed sources at large, which is clearly concerning. So let me see if I can do a better job explaining why it does not make sense to depict Arunachal—or, for that matter, any of India's territorial disputes other than Kashmir—as disputed on this map.

First is the idea that China's claim to Arunachal Pradesh automatically makes it "disputed". While in some narrow, dictionary sense of the term, that may be true, this does not reflect the normal usage of the concept of a "disputed territory". Disputed territory is generally assumed to refer to places like Kashmir, Western Sahara, Cyprus, Nagarno-Kabakh, etc., which either (a) face a lack of consensus at the international level regarding the rightful sovereign or (b) are in a situation where one claimant country has administrative control over the territory despite an international consensus that the territory rightfully belongs to the other claimant. Kashmir, Western Sahara, and Nagarno-Kabakh fit criteria (a) because, for one thing, the UN explicitly recognizes them as disputed and makes ongoing efforts to resolve the dispute, and also because various countries in the world have made conflicting formal declarations about recognizing one side or the other (the OIC openly supports Pakistan on Kashmir, Iraq under Sadam Hussein formally recognized the Indian claim, the AU expelled Morocco in support of the Sahrawi Arab Republic's claim, India and Afghanistan have formally recognized the Moroccan claim, etc.). Cyprus meets criteria (b) because despite universal recognition of the entire island of Cyprus as the territory of the Republic of Cyprus (cf UNSC Resolution 1974/360 and any EU statement on the issue), Turkish troops actively deny the Republic of Cyprus administrative control of the entire island. For the stated reasons, these three disputes along with a few others are virtually always depicted on maps of every type. See, for example, the CIA World Factbook's default world map .

Contrast this with the usual treatment of disputes like Arunachal Pradesh, which (as was previously said), is completely unilateral, has no basis in facts-on-the-ground, and is not taken seriously by any other country. The best parallel for the situation would be the Durrand Line between Afghanistan and Pakistan. As noted in the article, the international has implicitly and sometimes even explicitly confirmed its recognition of the Durrand Line as Pakistan's legal international border, and the only challenge to that consensus is a unilateral one from the Afghan side. Considering that, in any case, Afghanistan has not exercised administrative over the "claimed" territories in close to a century, its "claim" thus amounts to nothing more than empty rhetoric, which should not be a basis for drawing up any map (as a side note, if rhetoric were a basis for cartography, you would have to show the entire southwestern US as disputed with mexico). An equally strong parallel would be the Kuril Islands, which are claimed by Japan despite being recognized under international law as part of Russia and having been under Russian sovereignty for over six decades. Other parallels could be Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands. These are claimed by Spain and Argentina respectively despite being recognized as UK territory and not having been under the claimant's administrative control for 300 years (Gibraltar) and 30 years (Argentina). As general evidence that such unilateral claims are not usually acknowledged in general-purpose maps, you can refer again to the CIA's map or other reputable world maps, and more importantly I challenge you to find any map that highlights such disputes and was not created explicitly for the purpose of discussing territorial disputes. A map of Pakistan that shows Khyber-Pakhtunwa as disputed; a map of Japan that shows the Kuril Islands as disputed; and so on. You only need to find one to prove me wrong on this point. Also, for more direct evidence that Arunachal Pradesh specifically is not usually treated in this way, you can refer to any of the aforementioned world maps, or to the following more specific maps of just South Asia: -From the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12557384 -From the CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/ref_maps/political/jpg/asia.jpg -From the UN (on page 16): http://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/mathew_0809_india.pdf

Now, however, let's concede the first point and pretend that Arunachal Pradesh is treated as a disputed territory in general-purpose publications by reputable sources. That is still not grounds to show it as such on this map. The India locator map is the basis for maps in all sorts of articles on various aspects of India, most of which have nothing to do with Sino-Indian relations. Those maps and those articles need to accessible to and informative for a general readership, and because the Arunachal Pradesh dispute is little known outside of India and possible China (I personally doubt most Chinese have heard of it, but lets pretend they have) and because the dispute has no salience for most aspects of Indian society, this map will only confuse the majority of readers for a majority of articles on wikipedia. For example, take a look at 2013 elections in India. Is it really, truly necessary to draw attention to this issue when discussing state elections in other parts of India? It's comparable to a map of the US in an article about the US elections that bothers to show the US-Canadian border disputes (yes, those exist, and if you haven't heard of them its because they're about as relevant to american domestic politics as the arunachal dispute is to indian domestic politics). This map will only misguide readers as to what are salient issues in India's politics and foreign relations, and thus the map should be changed. Again, this would be in accordance with wikipedia and third-party policies towards comparable disputes such as the Durrand line dispute.

In short, it is unusual and thus inappropriate to depict Arunachal as disputed, and would be misleading except in a map meant to be used in an article directly concerned with the Sino-Indian border dispute, or a map of China from the Chinese perspective, in accordance with the wikipedia policy of showing the claimant's on maps of the claimant itself but not of the recognized sovereign (this policy can be seen in the fact that the kuril islands are highlighted on the map of japan featured in the article Japan but not on the map of russia featured in the article Russia).

Also, in quick response to the user who suggested that Sikkim should be highlighted, it is worth noting that there was never a "government in exile" of Sikkim because it was the King's own government that deposed him, led by the last prime minister of independent Sikkim who subsequently became the first chief minister of Indian Sikkim. This was on the basis of a referendum in the country to join India, which itself was an extension of the fact that Sikkim had already been a protectorate of India, Sikkim's defense and foreign affairs both being under Delhi's control. The king never disputed his prime minster's actions in an international forum or laid claim to the territory again, and in any case is long dead with no heir so any claim he could have made is no longer active. The only country which ever took issue with the legality of the annexation was China, and even that objection was dropped in 2003, when India recognized China's annexation of Tibet. So, that suggestion would make even less sense than highlighting Arunachal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.151.24 (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)