User talk:Amitroy5: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
←Blanked the page |
||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hi Amitroy5, I've replied to your question at [[Image talk:Indiastates&utnumbered.png]]. |
|||
Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. :) -- [[User:Ran|ran]] ([[User talk:Ran|talk]]) 03:19, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Rather than reverting repeatedly, why don't you discuss the problem over? I've already replied to your questions several times. If you still have concerns, why not raise them? -- [[User:Ran|ran]] ([[User talk:Ran|talk]]) 19:59, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Come to [[Image talk:Indiastates&utnumbered.png]] and discuss the problem... reverting over and over again is utterly pointless. -- [[User:Ran|ran]] ([[User talk:Ran|talk]]) 00:07, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
OK, here is the thing. Because I assume you are from China, your views would be bias. Why don't you mark Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Taiwan is "disputed." Same as those islands claimed by Japan. Here is my point. If China decides that the Indian state of Bihar was historically apart of China and thus, should be apart of China. Should it be marked disputed? India has a legal claim on Arunachal and Kashmir. |
|||
Hi Amit. [[Wikipedia:Welcome|Welcome]] aboard. |
|||
Nobody is free from biases. That is why we have talk pages to talk it out and reason. [[User:Ran|Ran]] has been around for a while and I'm sure will be willing for a discussion. So, rather than simply reverting a map, why don't we discuss the issue out. The problem is we have only the Indian perspective and he might have only the Chinese perspective. Let us discuss it at [[Image talk:Indiastates&utnumbered.png]] starting Monday (as I'm not sure how long I'll be online today). -- {{user|Sundar}} 06:44, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
P.S. By the way, you may be interested in the following links: |
|||
{{India quick links}} |
|||
''Why don't you mark Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Taiwan is "disputed." Same as those islands claimed by Japan.'' I've already given you a link to the Chinese map, which was made by me: [[:Image:China administrative.png]]. As you can see, Taiwan, the Diaoyu Islands, etc. are indeed marked as disputed. In general, I have marked out all areas on that map that are claimed or controlled by other sovereign governments. This is why I have not marked out Tibet or Inner Mongolia. |
|||
I have applied these standards of neutrality to the Chinese map, and Indian Wikipedians here such as Ankur and Nichalp have agreed to apply the same standards of neutrality to the Indian Map. I don't ask you to mark out areas like Nagaland or Manipur or Sikkim, just areas claimed or controlled by other sovereign governments. That includes northern Kashmir, Aksai Chin, and Arunachal Pradesh. |
|||
If we go by your standards, then I will have to mark Arunachal Pradesh as "Indian-occupied southern Tibet" on the Chinese map. But I don't want to do this, because it is not neutral. |
|||
Once again, let me reiterate that the maps of China and India should follow the '''same''' standards.-- [[User:Ran|ran]] ([[User talk:Ran|talk]]) 20:25, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Well, I don't want wrong information to be shown. Fine, I don't care what is on the China page. You should go update that Ran. Rather than spending time on India. Unfortunately, there is no comprimise possible if we each want one extreme. I want to show what is most accurate for people wanting to research India. As long is it's incorrect, I'm going to make sure it's correct. Thanks. Also, the map used to be like this. But it was different colors. |
|||
Also, just because two Indians agree doesn't mean all Indians agree. |
|||
:''Unfortunately, there is no comprimise possible if we each want one extreme.'' Hey look... I'm the one pushing for compromise. I am ''using the exact same standard for the Chinese map''. If I can do this at the risk of making the Chinese map look bad to Chinese Wikipedians, why can't you do the same for the Indian map? |
|||
:Let me put this simply. If Arunachal Pradesh is marked as undisputable Indian territory, then Aksai Chin should be marked as undisputable Chinese territory on the Chinese map. If you want to go for this ''less neutral'' arrangement then please let me know. -- [[User:Ran|ran]] ([[User talk:Ran|talk]]) 02:36, May 1, 2005 (UTC) |
|||