User talk:Amitroy5

Hi Amitroy5, I've replied to your question at Image talk:Indiastates&utnumbered.png.

Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. :) -- 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? -- 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. -- 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. Welcome aboard.

Nobody is free from biases. That is why we have talk pages to talk it out and reason. 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). -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 06:44, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, you may be interested in the following 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.-- 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'm not asking you to remove Aksai Chin completely from the Indian map. In fact I am using the exact same standard for the Chinese map as Nichalp's Indian 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 on the Indian map, 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 tell us. -- ran (talk) 02:38, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Why did you revert the map again, without addressing my points? -- ran (talk) 19:43, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I did, but I don't want to sound rude, but you are wrong. Both arunachal and kashmir are legally apart of India.

Legally? You mean by the laws of India. In China the McMahon Line is referred to as illegal. The McMahon Line was established at the Simla Conference, but it was never recognized by China, because the Chinese representative refused to sign the treaty at the time. The Chinese government calls Indian rule of Arunachal Pradesh an illegal occupation. Now since the government of India and China refer to each other's positions as "illegal", don't you think we should respect NPOV in this matter, and reflect the entire situation rather than a one-sided view?

Different countries have different views of how the world should be. On Wikipedia we cannot take one side. We must respect NPOV (neutral point-of-view), which is non-negotiable. I have respected NPOV. Why can't you? -- ran (talk) 01:36, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the cross talk, Amit. Please understand that we Indians are fed with information from the Indian perspective and we don't know others' perspective. Due to love for our country we fail to understand that there can be such POV issues. The same goes with a Chinese national or anyone else. Do we realise that India as a single entity never existed before decolonisation? Many states merely acceded to this country as against being a monolithic whole since the beginning of civilisation? Do you know that accession of Kashmir might not be as unconditional as that of, say, the erstwhile Madras Presidency? Are you aware that the Supreme Court of India doesn't have complete jurisdiction over Jammu and Kashmir?

Please understand that seasoned wikipedians usually go beyond national affiliations and start working for NPOV on wikipedia. I believe Ran must be one of them. Even so, he might have an inherent bias, which you can reason out in the talk pages and not by simple reverts. I would urge you to wait till Nichalp, the creator of the map, comes back and then thrash out issues. Just my 2 paise. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Amitroy5: this reversion game is meaningless, pointless, and wastes everyone's time. I can play it with you, but I don't see what it achieves. If you truly want to make Wikipedia better why aren't you participating in this discussion? -- ran (talk) 19:35, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Amitroy5: If you don't want to discuss, then don't revert. On Wikipedia we try to arrive at consensus through discussion, not see who's faster at reverting. -- ran (talk) 01:03, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Look, your refusal to discuss is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. If this goes on any further, then I will have to put this up for WP:RFC. -- ran (talk) 21:39, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Let me tell you this. Arunachal and Kashmir were legally given to India upon her independence. First, Kashmir did want to be independent. However, after Pakistan invaded, Kashmir government agreed to accede to India. That is how the line of control between Pak and Ind came. Later, China invaded India, and occupied apart of India's Kashmir. I'm marking those areas as "occupied" because these are legally India's territory. Also, in the case of Arunachal, before China's forceful annexation of Tibet, Tibet and Britain signed a treaty drawing a line between the two. What I'm trying to say is this which I'm not sure why you don't comprehend. Just because another country claims a piece of land doesn't mean you mark it as disputed. It's that simple. Arunachal is controlled by India. Also, if India decides to claim Tibet, would you mark it as disputed? Answer that. Thank you for your time.

if India decides to claim Tibet, would you mark it as disputed? Answer that.

You have asked similar questions so many times already! My answer to that is YES, 100% YES!! This is the heart and soul of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

China's basic reasoning is:

1. There is no verifiable treaty that gives Aksai Chin to Ladakh, Kashmir, or India. The traditional border is at the Karakorum Range, which gives the area to China.
2. Tibet was de jure a part of China during the Simla Convention. Since the McMahon line was not approved by China (only by Tibet), it is not legal.

The point is, Wikipedia IS ABOUT NPOV. When we come to Wikipedia, we forget all of our biases and beliefs and loyalties. As long as any government makes a claim, I will acknowledge it, and I am confident that Nichalp / Ankur / Sundar will acknowledge it as well. If India claims Tibet, I will indicate it thus. If India also claims Xinjiang, Manchuria, Japan and Hawaii, I will represent it on my maps. If China claims Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Sri Lanka and the Maldives, I will also represent it on my maps. This is NPOV. And this is how Wikipedia works. We have to work within this framework, because it is a fundamental part of Wikipedia's policies, and it is not negotiable. -- ran (talk) 21:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ran, that will not work. Because in the China description, the disputes aren't marked.

Hey look, I made the map of China, and I think I know what is marked and what is not:

Which part of this map is not marked to your satisfaction?

If you want to complain about Tibet or Xinjiang, may I remind you that earlier on I said about India: I don't ask you to mark out areas like Nagaland or Manipur or Sikkim, just areas claimed or controlled by other sovereign governments.

I like consistency, and I want the same neutral standards applied to the maps of India and China. Surely you would agree with that? -- ran (talk) 02:44, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

OK, you may restore it and I won't bother anymore for now if you label the disputed territories. Also, mention which is occupied by India and who is claiming the area.