Commons:Deletion requests/File:India Bhutan Locator.png - Wikimedia Commons


Article Images

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Because this is actually a locator map for Bhutan and China, and not for India and Bhutan as the title says.. The Govt of India has also very recently directed (threatened/censorship) WMF to either delete this particular image or else face imprisonment. Accordingly, I feel Commons community must exhaustively debate whether to buckle to Censorship threats from any corner including from WMF office actions. Links to the Censorship threats. [1], [2], [3] Aghore (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion, support replacement/correction. The govt of India is tossing around irrelevant threats of imprisoning people or blocking internet access to Wikipedia. There's squabbling over at EN:Talk:Bhutan–India_relations. The issue is that there is a disputed region between India and China, and this map doesn't color the region as disputed. It should. I expect someone will modify this map or create a replacement, soon. In the mean time the current imperfect map is still in use because it is more useful to Wikipedia-readers than not having any map. Alsee (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the original post is a serious misrepresentation of the debate. No one is proposing "buckling to censorship" - the concern that has been raised is quite independent of any government threats, which as usual, are not relevant to NPOV. The issue is that this map, which is used in an article having nothing at all to do with the issue of Aksai Chin, appears to take sides in a border conflict. In articles directly about India and about Aksai Chin, we have NPOV maps which appropriately indicate that there is a dispute. Aghore is POV pushing that anything other than taking one side of this issue is "buckling to censorship" - a view which is not close to consensus. I believe that the best solution to this situation is to create a map of a similar nature, except consistent with NPOV we should not show Aksai Chin (which is hundreds of kilometers away from Bhutan and has nothing to do with Bhutan) as being uncontroversially part of China. It is disputed territory and a better map would at least subtly note that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, the Govt of India wants this image to be deleted. They have not said "replace it" or "improve it". Aghore (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace: To maintain the NPOV, not only this, but many maps of India within Category:Locator maps of India and others should be rectified and all the disputed regions of en:Aksai Chin, en:Azad Kashmir and en:Gilgit-Baltistan should be marked separately. For example, these regions are shown correctly with a different shade in File:India Afghanistan Locator.svg. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that the Govt of India has used section 69-A, the NPOV argument won't wash with them. Their law is black and white and binary. Correct/Incorrect or True/False. Also under the new emergency guidelines, all such complaints will be sent to Wikipedia within 3 days or else the officer is penalised. Wikipedia gets 36 hours after receipt to respond. FYI, I myself got over 300 Google webpages taken down, and 19 entire websites blocked using section 69-A. The Delhi High Court Judgment in UTV matter gives blanket permission to take down websites (for repeat offences - 2 strikes your out) without even issuing a notice like what WMF received here. Aghore (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace Hi all, this comment is from the Foundation Legal Team. We did receive a formal order from the Indian government on this map and have looked at the issue. At this time, we are not planning on changing the map ourselves, but we would recommend the community update it to more distinctly indicate the disputed borders. We think an appropriate update would more accurately reflect most other maps of India on Commons and be likely to resolve the concerns that the Indian government sent to us. Even though their order asked for deletion, we suggest that replacement with a better quality map will satisfy what they’re looking for without requiring removal of helpful content for illustrating the India-Bhutan relationship. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It is about disputed territories rather than disputed "borders". The language of Mr. Sawhney's letter is clearly based on their 2016 GIS Policy, which leaves them absolutely no leeway for compromise. Even Google (with all their influence and legal firepower) buckled down eventually [4]. Aghore (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is going crazy. I'm wondering what will happen next. Requesting deletion of the archived version as well? Deletion of File:India disputed areas map.svg claiming there are no disputed areas? As here on Commons is no need of NPOV I'd say: let's replace the image on Wikipedias by File:India Bhutan locator, including disputed regions.png and keep this one until WMF staff decides to delete it. --Achim (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I may offer a follow up thought. I would encourage actually changing this specific map, but I wouldn't worry about the slippery slope argument at this point. In my experience, governments tends to really tunnel-vision when they've got a specific URL in hand, as is the case here with the map on Commons. So, I am not worried about many requests, but I am worried about this one situation escalating if the map isn't changed at all. These kinds of orders are quite rare and I think if the response to this kind of government demand is for the community to improve the map (rather than delete or do nothing), the Foundation legal team will be in a good position to encourage the Indian government (and other governments in future) to avoid this kind of demand and instead work through Commons community processes. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jacob, this is not a one off case. This is the thin edge of the wedge. Recall this [5] ? Safe harbor is going to get very tricky for WMF in India. BTW what are your comments on what Google Maps had to do to avoid being blocked in India?Aghore (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After the Shreya Singhal matter in India's Supreme Court, the Govt is now obliged to pass on all such user generated complaints within 72 hours to the intermediary - who then gets 36 hours to act, or not. The UTV judgment also says, Indian regulators don't have to block a specific page or URL but can block the entire website of repeat offenders (the judge said lets "whack-a-mole") without any notice. Aghore (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The blog post you linked remains accurate. This request is specific to a single map. There may be other maps that neither the Indian government nor the Foundation know about that could be identified as a problem in the future. But it is not our obligation to seek those out. Rather, if the Indian government (or any other government for that matter) determines that something is a problem for them, it is up to them to identify it to the Wikimedia Foundation or an appropriate community channel. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my chat with the dealing officers over there, they would not interact with the community but would simply transmit all genuine complaints u/s 69-A to WMF whom they deem to be an intermediary under Indian law. WMF may chose to seek shelter u/s 79 of their law, or else approach the community each time. There is no procedure in Indian law for an Indian complainant to be compelled (or even requested) to interact with any Wikipedia community to get content removed. The Indian Supreme Court has been passing some very stern directions recently. Aghore (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jacob, a cabal of EN:WP admins have just blocked me on that project for discussing this image while citing an Indian law which they deem to be "irrelevant" compared to NPOV. Aghore (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not lie. Your account, which btw did not have any useful contributions, was blocked for making legal threats. I am prepared to block you here as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a cabal. That was a bunch of experienced editors trying to explain all the ways your understanding of policy was incorrect. Valereee (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter It is clearly explained here [6] why my 1000+ edits were redacted and why my enwiki account was reactivated in January 2020. WMF Legal must be aware why their domains WIKIMEDIA.IN and WIKIPEDIA.IN were taken offline in India from Jan 2020. It is ordained that if this ostrich attitude of "Wikipedia is not censored", "Government laws are irrelevant" "NPOV trumps local laws" etc continues, then ALL Wikimedia projects will soon be blocked in India - as they are in China. Have a nice day. Aghore (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Becoming internally repressive in response to threats of external repression is a terrible, terrible idea. It always is, and it always ends badly. Repressive regimes are going to do repressive shit, within their reach, until those being repressed have had enough of it. WMF is not the "ForceEveryJurisidictionOnEarthToBeNiceAndLikeUsAndPermitOurContent Foundation", and does not exist to (directly) influence any jurisdiction to be less shitty to its own citizens (though the collective work of its projects hopefully has some of that effect indirectly, by helping keep the rest of the world informed, and activistic about what's going on in the places that are forcibly cutting themselves off from anything that's not in agreement with their own echo chamber). Any country that wants to cut off its nose to spite its own face can do that, and be uglier for the effort, but it doesn't impose any kind of obligation on WP, Commons, or the rest of WMF's global editorial and reader base, as unfortunate as those nationalistic self-mutilations may be. PS: WMF doesn't need any .in domains. It's like saying "Give me your first born child! Otherwise I will not let you come to my birthday party!" DGaF, and the answer is "Um, no."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I think adding the map (with disputed areas marked in different colors) would still be adhering to WP:NPOV, so I think adding one of those maps back would be fine. I've made edits to the Kashmir region locator maps (which would arguably be a lot more contentious) which clearly show it's disputed, so adding disputed areas doesn't sound like a hard sell. C1MM (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has 2 light green areas to the North. Aghore (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As File:India Bhutan locator, including disputed regions.png has, so what? --Achim (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't comply with Indian law. Showing it as disputed in different colors is not permitted under Indian law. The boundaries of the light green shaded regions are not recognised by the Govt of India. Google (which is a professionally managed organisation with huge legal budgets) has already learnt this lesson and buckled. NPOV is not recognised under Indian law as "freedom of speech" when it conflicts with the soveregnity of India. As Jrogers has confirmed India wants this file deleted. Because the image file is actually hosted on the servers of wikimedia.org and not on commons.wikimedia.org, commons has no say or locus in the matter except to either delete the file or to retain it and fight it out. The compromise of "fixing" the file cannot not be accepted under Indian law, which is why that option was not offered and is not on the table.Aghore (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. It doesn't give a damn whether some Indian weirdos insist of Wikimedia projects' content having to follow Indian law. If wp projects will be shut down there, well, I'm fine with that as the executive authority of India will this way do damage to their own country. Do we really need India? Do we have to kiss their officials' feet? --Achim (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because I see that you are a very experienced and highly regarded Commons administrator, I have a small query of you. Can you either please locate the city of "Gilgit" on this new map which is being proposed or specify if it is in a dark green area or the light-green areas of the map. This small act by any admin of Commons will completely resolve this situation. Thanks. Aghore (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a trap! Aghore, being an admin on Wikimedia Commons doesn't mean you represent the site or WMF. It just means you volunteer here and that the other volunteers think you have a clue and aren't a jerk. WMF doesn't appoint admins or even have any approval process. Achim55 doesn't in any way speak for WMF or WC. Valereee (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee What I do know is that apparently a ring of rogue en-Wikipedia admins connected to India (which included Bladesmulti, OccultZone, Regentspark, AmritasyaPutra, Vipul, WifiOne and many others) were responsible for getting over a 1,000 of my valuable edits on en-wikipedia between 2013 and 2019 permanently deleted as collateral damage in En.ARBCOM matters and the legal cases which followed in India brought by a motivated user they blocked. So you are incorrect in your hypotheses, because it is ultimately WMF which controls the servers and who give admins, arbs, bureaucrats and oversighters their privileges to block other users and censor them and checkuser them. An analogy would be a school management which gives teachers and headmasters powers to detain children after school and then must take responsibilty when a child dies during such detention. I can give you very specific examples whereby several people actually died in India due to on-wiki actions of errant Wikipedia admins (and also 1 former WMF trustee), but this is not the proper forum for it. If a prisoner dies in jail because of a beating by warders, are you implying the jail management is not responsible in some way ? I really don't see why volunteers should take the fall for paid employees of the very well funded WMF which has no hesitation in providing hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to NGOs in India who do the same work as volunteers do here for free. Further, unlike admins on Commons who are generally selfless for the thankless work they do, most en-wiki volunteer admins are being paid indirectly, as I found out to my cost. Aghore (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If most enwiki admins are being paid indirectly, I'm missing a lot of money lol. Enwiki is notorious for having multiple editors capable of and willing to spend most of their time trying to dig up dirt on admins. The idea that most are being paid indirectly isn't a secret that could ever be kept; we're talking 1100 people, some of whom hate each other enough to be willing to go down in flames themselves as long as they can take the other down with them. Someone would whistleblow. You're making very serious accusations here without diffs to back them up. (And, no, the one you linked to above in your reply to Ymblanter isn't good enough. It's just another vague statement about you being 'privately informed' of something by someone at some point.) Valereee (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link I could find. Albeit with some difficulty [7]. Due to WP rules I cannot link to off-wikipedia sources where he publicly declares his identity and provides court pleadings. Here is also a link to the other user we discussed at En-wiki who impersonated a medical student [8] for paid promotion of illegal self abortion kits. Aghore (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: All but two of the usernames above are not and have never been admins. One was desysopped in an arb case that was brought partially because they were indeed editing for pay, which pissed people off so much in admin that the person was not only desysopped but basically banned from editing about India. Perhaps you're confusing paid editors with paid admins? There are hundreds of thousands of editors, and absolutely some of them are paid, though it's certainly not most. And I'd be shocked if there were more than a handful with admin privileges who are doing that; it's just too big a target on your back when you can more easily fly under the radar if you'd not an admin. Valereee (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many records in those old matters were tampered with at very high user privilege levels to avoid WMF responsibility. Also, if an admin has 2 bad hand accounts which were used extensively, those must also be deeemd as admin accounts. Aghore (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked this account indef, they clearly here not for the benefit of the project.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I don't understand. Of course Gilgit is located in the light green area because it is clearly within the disputed areas and is administered by Pakistan. --Achim (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why no Indian Govt officer can publicly accept that by disobeying a direct order from the President of India [9]. Aghore (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The Indian govt is shedding tears that there not even one Indian official is acting in Gilgit. --Achim (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've supplied a modified map as File:India Bhutan Locator2.png, derived from File:India Bhutan Locator.png and File:India Administrative divisions FR.svg. Feel free to improve it. --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Simply replace it with the accurate version, as suggested by Jrogers (WMF) and others, as is the usual practice here. No need for deletion, but should be replaced ASAP, since the current map is obviously inaccurate in its context.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's a consensus that it's wrong then just fix it. That's a discussion that needs to happen on the talk page and doesn't require deletion. GMGtalk 13:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Replace with correct map ASAP. Good to see that everyone agrees that this map need to be replaced. Now what are we waiting for? There is no reason to extend this discussion, as everyone agrees. Can an admin please go ahead and replace with the corrected version available on File:India Bhutan Locator2.png. @GreenMeansGo: Can you please do it, as I don't know how to replace an image. --Walrus Ji (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC) --(This is Walrus Ji's first edit. Liz (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
  •  Keep as always with disputed areas, just create a second map and link and explain the other file. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The RfD is hindunationalist nonsense. The map shows India in Kashmir with the 1972 line of actal resp. 1962 line of actual control which defacto is the border between India, Pakistan, and Red China. The purpose of the map is to illustrate the bilateral realtionship of India and Bhutan with the focus on a) geographic location to each other, and b) the different size of the two states. China does not play any role in this map. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral, may be kept or deleted. Anyway not in use any longer. --Achim (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment A typical map with de facto boundaries. Such maps are as well NPOV/correct as maps with de jure boundaries. NNW 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above, though it should possibly be replaced with an alternative at various articles; that's up to editorial discretion over there, and it's not the job of Commons to "legislate" matters about

    de jure

    versus

    de facto

    territorial claims and how that information is to be presented under the policies of other websites. Further, this deletion nonsense is also missing a major common-sense point: We have historical maps, too, and they do not agree with current ones, because borders change. Existence of a map image does not equate to specific real-world claims about the present (and if any claims are made, that's a matter of text content on the image description page, or at an article at Wikipedia, etc., where the claim is actually made). Hell, I could right now create a map of the results of a fictional War of 2112, showing Canada having taken over the top half of the US – and that would have zero implications for anything. Existence of the image is meaningless. At absolute most, what we have here is a dispute over what the map purports to represent, as of when. If the govt. of India isn't competent to write and interpret laws that make any sense at all, that's not our problem. (And still wouldn't be even if they did make sense, since WP and Commons and WMF are not subject to India's jurisdiction.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as nominator) the map as it is and retain the link to it on Wikipedias. It is a freedom of expression issue, and I am not surprised that WMF is weaseling out of this and throwing users under the bus once again. Adding shaded areas is going to amplify the problem here not solve it. Aghore (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Delete the map wherever the same has been used in Wikipedia.JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't blame the WMF for wanting to delete this. That being said, we cannot, without violating the fundamental mission of Wikimedia, delete valid, free information simply because a government takes issue with it. If there is a specific issue on an article, of course we can try to find solutions that please both parties (as I attempted to do by omitting much of the disputed region), but we should not censor the internet for the sake of a government. Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure about actually using this map as illustration in articles, but as depiction of the areas under administrative power of two neighbouring countries (at least I think it is that) I do not see a valid reason as per Commons policies to get rid of this file. However, it might be better to find a more precise file name. → «« Man77 »» [de] 18:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is nothing wrong with the map and nobody has objected for 10 years to it. Its perfect and there is no need to alter it. It's a blatant attempt of governmental censorship and chilling effect to our core principles and mission. This is where WMF must show a bit of stick to such tinpot governments and simply ignore them as its just another flash in the pan publicity exercise by the rabid Hindu nationalist goons who have taken over India to divert from their criminal mishandling of the Sars-Cov-2 virus epidemic. 06:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)~
  • Keep this NPOV map and dont change it in any manner.I am against chilling speech and say Wikipedia management must stand up to keep this map intact on the article page and not kowtow before Indian government Kumarkk1203 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its based on right Map of Asian states which has been around for ages with nobody complaining. Possession is 9 points of the law and the other areas not colored clearly belong to neither India nor Bhootan. Savemyinternet (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace This isn't a vote on free speech. Irrespective of how Indian govt might have phrased its request, the bottomline is that the map reflects the claims of one country over another's in a disputed region. Once Wikipedia is made aware that the content takes sides in a long standing international dispute that has resulted in four wars, NPOV applies. The nationality of the requestor, their views on freedom of expression and their religious beliefs does not need to be leveraged to get Wikipedia to take sides in a territorial dispute between nations.
The existing map represents the de-facto ground position and control as per international consensus and monitoring, so this map does not represent claims of one country over another. In any case, Tibet, which borders Bhutan, is part of China now and was never a part of India. No map which reflects 'claims' of one side over another can be said to be NPOV. This map is actually the NPOV one because it depicts reality, not fictions.Savemyinternet (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it is widely known, both sides are seeing troop movements along these borders with nearly 100,000 troops occupying positions that are different from 6 months back. This boundary is very much in flux and for Wikipedia to foist a definitive boundary on this issue is not appropriate. There is no international consensus on this boundary. A neutral position only needs to reflect overlapping claim lines with dotted lines of both sides which is a fairly common map to be found even in the UN depictions of this region [10]. The dotted lines for differing claims underlines the neutrality of Wikipedia and does not weaken it as a platform for accurate information. The replace request here is not asking for one claim to be foisted over another, only to arrive at a solution that avoids Wikipedia from being drawn into taking sides in this active border. The replace request is seeking that Wikipedia not be used as a platform to "bank" any gains made on the ground with absolute maps like these and create a narrative for one side as that sets a precedent that can be used all over the globe.
I think there is a misconception here; Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, has to abide by NPOV; Commons, the file hosting site, does not. It can hold files relating to one's side POV. Of course, this has to be explained and put into context (NPOV) in the Wikipedia article, but maps and such can certainly reflect a POV on commons. NPOV on Commons is not a valid reason for deletion. (Replacing the image can be discussed on Wikipedia, not Commons, although it has already been replaced.) Also see Commons:Disputed territories Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that the commons site does not abide by NPOV. In that case, replacement is not appropriate. I would suggest that we follow one of the practices recommended in the link above - "Both versions of any map can be uploaded as separate files, clearly labelled with their POV". I guess the labelling could be addressed here and cross linking with the alternate view of this boundary would also be the right thing to do (as recommended in the link). Also, I see that since this discussion has started, the Wikipedia sites that were referring to this map, no longer appear to do so, so NPOV seems to be getting addressed on that front.
  •  Comment Request for clarification on this diff.
    (a) I read somewhere that India has 4 times the English speakers that USA does, can wikimedia afford to lose that demographic?
    (b) Because India follows Common law, like Canada does, Indian Courts can decide to follow the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in Google versus Equustek (where WMF intervened on the, losing, side of Google) to direct WMF that all incorrect maps of India be taken down globally.
    (c) Ironically, WMF's business model (similar to Google's) of transacting all business through USA instead of local subsidiaries is what allows courts to issue these globally binding directions. What was earlier perceived as its strength is now the Achilles heel. Savemyinternet (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked this one as well as a likely sock of Aghore and will now semi-protect the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. The image can be replaced/updated if there is any need, but there is no need for deletion (“India wants it” is definitivly no reason at all). --DaB. (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]