File talk:Nepal in its region.svg

This map confuses the de facto (in the field) and de jure (claimed) borders, which are represented in the same way. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This map doesn't claim to show the de-facto situation or the de-iure situation. The author (happens to be me) simply doesn't state which situation is depicted. So how could the map confuse one with each other? I simply don't understand what you mean. It's not very logical.

Also: de-facto borders, even for disputed territories, are very often (I'd say in most cases) also de-iure borders of at least one state, while others may dispute the legality of this border. And claimed land could very well be in possession of the claimer and thus reflect the de-facto possesion and in most cases the de-iure opinion of that particular state. So the very same border could be a de-iure, de-facto, claimed and actual border. That is another weakness of your argument. I don't want to sound too negative. Please explain again why you think the map is wrong. Be specific! --TUBS 13:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your approach. Yes, you are right about the complexity of de facto and de jure statutes. So: as a simple reader, I need to know, in a hand, what are the real sovereignty limits on the land (which can be marked by a continuous line, but finer than the borders recognized by the two parties) and in the other hand, what are the claims (which can be marked with a paler or dotted line). The current version of the map does not provide an understanding of what is controlled by each country. Cordial greetings, --Claude Zygiel (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)