File talk:India Jammu and Kashmir state location map.svg

 

change color

This has gray for PoK and Aksai chin that is correct.

en:Himachal pradesh and en:Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and en:Aksai Chin are in same color. It gives wrong impression to Indians. While himachal is under indian control, the other two regions are under pak and china control. Those two regions sould be changed to gray color of pak or china territory, not himchal's color. India locator map can be taken as reference. Avoided blue (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• 
  Tibet map has gray for Arunachal pradesh even though china claims it which the same author updated here [1] on Feb 2010
• 

 Done Now this map colors match with File:India_location_map.svg, File:Pakistan location map.svg, File:China Xinjiang location map.svg and File:China Tibet location map.svg Avoided blue (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

NordNordWest, Wikipedia has nothing to do with "Indian view" whatsoever. You overlooked discussion on en, and in fact misleading readers by this map especially indian readers. How can en:Himachal Pradesh(at bottom of the map under indian military control) can have same colour as en:Gilgit-Baltistan(pakistan military control) and en:Aksai Chin(chinese military control for 50+ years)? By the way the other contradicting maps i embedded here are also created by you. Avoided blue (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And the perfect example would be Tibet map from you embedded here, does it have bright colour for en:Arunachal Pradesh as it is "claimed by China view", but owned by indian army for 50+ years? Just 30 years and we call it a generation.. Avoided blue (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Another revert without discussion and you will find yourself here. I'll answer later. NNW (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

At least you think you will have to answer, thats a good sign. Avoided blue (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I always answer questions, this is not a "have to" to me. NNW (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Avoide blue has a point here. This map currently uses the same colour for areas under Pakistani and Chinese adiminstration (PAK and Aksai Chin) and the indian state of Himachal pradesh. A simple solution would be to change the colouring of Himachal pradesh (the region below indian administered kashmir) to a different colour. This has nothing to do with "indian view" or any political agenda - right now as the map presents it, IAK looks like it is sitting sandwiched between pakistan administered regions.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats good idea to change Himachal pradesh colour but is that enough? Will people able to see gradient of total 4 colours in a single map? If you see Tibet map, File:China Tibet location map.svg Arunachal pradesh is just plain gray though "china's view" claims it. And now see India map File:India_location_map.svg embedded above where those PoK and Aksai chin are plain gray, we can even just crop this map instead, these are areas militarily controlled by others for more than 50 years you know. And the author says he doesnt care en wikipedia which accounts for more than 50% of all wiki readers. Avoided blue (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a location map project founded in 2008, a cooperation of French and German map labs. At this point there was no cartography partner in other WP projects. French and German cartographers developed a common style for these maps: yellow for the main area as descriped in the file name; dark grey for foreign countries; light grey ("German style") or orange ("French style") for other areas inside the same country of the main area (here Arunachal Pradesh) or disputed areas. The difference between these other areas and disputed areas is indicated with different boundaries: thin lines for other areas, fat and dotted lines for disputed areas. So it is not only a question of colour but also of different lines. It has often been discussed if there should be a fourth colour for it but the majority of the map developers/creators decided against it. Location maps should stay as simple as possible because they are used in quite small thumbs. The more difficult these maps would get the less readable they would be.

Changing the colours here isn't a good solution because this map is part of a project of more or less consistent maps. You may rest assured that colours and boundaries are discussed at almost every map showing disputed areas but no discussion led to a solution that satisfies all proplematic areas. I don't claim that these maps are all consistent in form and content, difficult with ~200 countries and lots of disputes with different international attention and evaluation (I had lots of discussion when making the maps of Serbia and Kosovo which both show a different status and Bulgarian WP has got a slightly modified map of Serbia now but everybody's fine with it) and I am definitely willing to adjust my maps but this has to be made with a view to all location maps. So it is important to talk about it at first.

Which colours for which area in this map:

• It is a map of Jammu and Kashmir, so this gets yellow.
• According to the en:Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir) India claims the complete area of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Parts of this state are under the control of Pakistan and China, so these areas become light grey.
• Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh are both part of the same country, so Himachal Pradesh becomes light grey, too. The difference to Northern Areas/Azad Kashmir/Aksai Chin is indicated by different border lines.
• The rest is shown dark grey.

Arunachal Pradesh: My location maps of Chinese territory take the definition of en:Mainland China. That way File:China Tibet location map.svg shows Arunachal Pradesh dark grey but with a fat dotted boundary. If we would follow a different view and would show all areas in light grey that a claimed by China we would have to follow this map. Hugh parts of Inner Asia would become light grey, there wouldn't even been no independent country of Mongolia. This would be senseless. So it was clear for all cartographers to reduce China to Mainland China and show just such areas in light grey which are actually occupied by China (= Aksai Chin). If you have a better solution to solve this problem, I would be pleased to hear it. Btw this is what I meant speaking of a special view to the location maps. A location map of Mongolia seen through official Chinese eyes would look completely different. And of course there is an Indian view, too.

A second btw: This location map of Jammu and Kashmir is well known at en:Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction. No one there seems to be misled. NNW (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You dont have enough knowledge, your comment "Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh are both part of the same country" manifests just that. Indian state "Jammu and Kashmir" does NOT include full bright area of your map, but only half of that, I'm not sure if you are aware of subdivisions jammu, kashmir and ladakh. Himachal pradesh is under indian military control but gilgit-baltistan and aksai chin are not. en:Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir) is disputed, not implemented and of NO VALUE and UN Pakistan map includes Gilgit-Baltistan. And this perticular location map is NOT used anywhere outside "indian jurisdiction" which is limited to only area controlled by indian military. If you see ground reality 50+ years the land has not exchanged between nations, and UN map is what wiki should go by, not one claimed by India. I agree 4 colours confuse, so we gray areas that are not under indian military jurisdiction. But let boundaries be there as dotted line as differential compared to an international boundary - which is what exactly i edited. I appreciate your effort in creating maps, but giving readers wrong info is bigger sin than giving no info.

This perticular thing i find very appalling as me an Indian only came to know that we dont own that full bright area only after im 20 years old, that we own only half of that map, i was kept in dark till then. I dont want my next gen to be mislead by wiki, let alone by our disillusioned govt. As for your "No one there seems to be misled", it is politics of any country which indian wiki editors politically motivated few may even chose to ignore this, and few are ignorant as all indian maps show indians as full. And this Indian map should open your eye which is exposed to more users than this J&K map, I would like your comment regarding this map. Please dont take this issue personally, this conflict hurting economies of two developing countries, and a map reflecting ground reality would definitely help the situation. Avoided blue (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't speculate about my knowledge of Indian subdivisions, this is ridiculous and won't help at all. After that please re-read en:Wikipedia:Verifiability. India claims the whole area, this is not my invention and this cannot be ignored. It doesn't matter if the Line of Control is 50 or more years old, it is a Line of Control, not a regular boundary. Will you tell Syria the Golan heights are gone forever because Israel occupied it in 1967? There is a severe difference between a de facto and a de jure situation. Yes, the Instrument of Accession ist disputed, and this map doesn't show the complete princely state of Jammu and Kashmir as de facto part of India, so I don't understand what you are complaining about. I am not responsible for what Indian politician or teachers tell, and Wikipedia either. Wikipedia is not made to find solutions for the economies of developing countries, they have find their solutions themselves. Btw your second section contradicts en:WP:NPOV. NNW (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You are talking too vaguely regarding wp:v and wp:npov. UN map is considered neutral and not india's view. Stop talking instrument of accession which is with India and not with UN and disputed regarding its date by pakistan. China claims whole of Arunachal pradesh but why you kept it gray in this embedded map? These 2 maps contradict with the current J&K map( of your version) and my map would conform to both these maps File:China Tibet location map.svg and File:India_location_map.svg. Now that you are the only opposer and 2 editors including me opposing your version can i revert the file now? Avoided blue (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Too vaguely? You made my day. :o) You just spread the discussion here and here (no answer since yesterday) and here (no answer since yesterday either). And now you want to revert? I really don't understand what you are doing. Feel free to upload a second map but leave this one as it is. The way you discuss and act is definitely not mine. And you apparently didn't understand a word about the J&K and the Tibet map. NNW (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have uploaded your file as File:India_Jammu_and_Kashmir_location_map.svg, as it is Indian view. This was done because i was advised not to overwrite an existing file in disputes page. I will revert this now if nobody objects. Avoided blue (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you read your own thread at Disputes noticeboard? You will leave this file as it is and upload your file with a different name. What is so complicated about it? Btw neither at en:Talk:Jammu and Kashmir nor at en:Talk:India anybody is interested in your discussion. NNW (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Previous comment i gave wrong link. Now as told in own thread at Disputes noticeboard I have uploaded both your and my maps as File:India Jammu and Kashmir location map Indian view.svg and File:India Jammu and Kashmir location map UN view.svg respectively. But this perticular file name being used as standard naming in templates, we will revert it to my version as supported by one more editor here. Your file will be safe as "indian view" under file name File:India Jammu and Kashmir location map Indian view.svg Avoided blue (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You will find yourself at COM:AN/V if you revert. You are ignoring everything you are told. NNW (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Anybody changing this map with any NPOV argumentation might read COM:NPOV first. Thank you! NNW 12:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but your argument is not valid. Why do you believe this unrecognised map should be used on Wikipedia in place of the internationally accepted UN-version map? Lyk4 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have self-reverted and will let it stay as I have found a neutral UN map of the region. That map could be used instead of this one where required. Cheers, Lyk4 (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)