Talk:Cartographic aggression

Bias? What bias?
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)

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

Pro indian
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)

when, and when not?
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)