Talk:Cartographic aggression

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Maps

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles
	This redirect has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Bias? What bias?[edit]

The examples cited cover many countries apart from India, and there is no suggestion that the point of view of India or any other country is valid, only that certain countries (India among them) have claimed to be the victims of cartographic aggression. As regards the 'Pro indian' comment below, the commentator has completely failed to comprehend the meaning of cartographic aggression, and because of this has cited completely non-cartographic aggressive activities such as sending RAW agents or military operations in the Siachen. About the only non-NPOV remark is that favouring Chad, and that is justified by the Hague ruling. Oropolitics (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

indian bias in article[edit]

This article suggests that india is the victim of cartographic aggression without fairly representing other points of view.

Pro indian[edit]

this article completely ignores the indian aggression over azad kashmir and sending in RAW agents into pakistan and then attacking pakistani posts in siachen DELETION REQUIRED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.178.203 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

when, and when not?[edit]

It seems to me that cartographic aggression should be distinct from physical aggression, that is, war. If it precedes war by a significant amount of time, then it should count as cartographic, though. Gah4 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Also, the article only mentions countries. Is it possible for cities, counties, states, or provinces to also use cartographic aggression? Gah4 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]