This article is also reminiscent of Seeing Like A State, which is quickly becoming my favorite book. The book notes that maps (and map-like devices, like censuses, even systems of measures), again prove to be an imperfect device for capturing physical or social reality, failing because the territory changes too much too quickly.
So if I don't know where those places are, I should find out by...?
Advice from a commenter: Put away the headline.
Out lives are saturated with headlines. We see them in cars, subways, and airplanes. We access them with our phones, computers, and GPS devices. There are headlines of deep space and of the topography of the deepest ocean floors. Then there are the headlines of us — of our genomes, of the cognitive landscape of our brains, of the web of neural connections that allow us to see and think and act. Our faith in the headline as a true representation of the article, and a reliable metaphor for experience and the concepts of modern life, is exercised every day, largely without question.
And before doing exactly that, you could start by not taking everything (like the headline or my advice) literally and following it to absurdity.
In the case of maps there are all sorts of issues that relate to projections and size, the 2d nature of maps vs. the 3d nature of lots of places, editorial decisions as to what is relevant and what is not, etc. There are a lot of political subtleties as well, historical changes, temporary changes, etc. Also, continental drift and gps accuracy are a thing; especially in earthquake sensitive regions.
relationship to place = fascist => no-border