Talk:Indian subcontinent/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Structure of the article

I have made changes to the structure of the article which one editor is constantly reverting without discussion. I guess I need to start the discussion. Well, here are the reasons:

1. About half the article is about defining what falls within the region referred to as "Indian Subcontinent" it is only prudent to keep that information together. Spreading out that critical information over three different section is a deterrent to understanding area or the information presented.
2. The section that existed as "Human geography" was all about what country comes within the scope of "Indian Subcontinent" apart from one single sentence on the population (which already is pretty undefined, but that's a separate issue). Therefore, information is better organized if that single sentence is merged into the section that existed as "Physical geography". All that was required was to call it simply - "Geography".

That's all the change that has been made. If it looks or feels wrong, please, state why it is so while reverting it once again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And I have corrected these substantial, nonconsensual changes again. Your original groupings of information only serve to (IMO) further a personal bias regarding definitions of the region and obstructionism in editing this article. As previously structred, physical geography deals with physical elements of the region, while human geography involves anything when descriptions of countries and people (e.g., populations) come into play. Lumping all this information together in one geography section, while creating two sections on definition and terminology which overwhelm the article, places undue emphasis on those concepts and detract from understanding specifics about the region. So, no, per above that's not 'all the change that has been made.' All the more flummoxing given the proportion of humanity that lives in the region. So ... commentary from other editors is welcomed. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to notice that the article is not about the proportion of humanity that lives in the region, rather it is about an alternative concept for South Asia. Therefore, nomenclature, definition, and scope naturally gets more emphasis. Did you try emphasizing on anything that can't be covered in the article of South Asia, and is exclusive to Indian Subcontinent? Substantiating a stand is always more desirable unwarranted personal attacks. Obviously you can see that your opinion on my intentions should not be the guiding principle for an Wikipedia article, especially when you have not addressed a single argument forwarded above. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I have merged the "Definition" and "Terminology" sections to reduce the fear of undue weight. I also have split the geography section to have a section on "geography" and another on "geology". Now both can be developed further. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And I have corrected your edits, yet again. Your prior commentary is proof positive of your stance regarding the issue and, as above, your recent edits further that. Of course it is about the geography of the region and, as it were, the proportion of humanity in the region, not your conflation of terms. It is not an alternative concept for South Asia as such, but a concept unto itself. The references provided, largely as a result of your tortuous activity on this page, are namely about the subcontinent. Your edits to the article place, unjustifiably, undue weight on nomenclature to the exclusion of much else, and your editing throughout has had a similar effect on content with the goal of confusing issues and deprecating the term (e.g., prior merge w/o consensus). Can you honestly say your edits have made this a more encyclopedic article? I have addressed what little salient argumentation you have provided. Come back when you can better objectify and justify your edits. As for commenting on your behaviour, as others above have here, a spade is a spade: Wikipedia is not your mother. Bosonic dressing (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What undue weight are you talking about? Your failure to provide substantial amount of information that's exclusively about Indian Subcontinent and not about South Asia doesn't imply that we have to revert back to a nonsensical structure to prove whatever point you're trying to make. I have corrected your erroneous edit once again.

And, since Wikipedia is not my mother, would you prefer to state the reason to spread the variance in the geographical scope of the region over multiple sections? Is it just an attempt to counter my supposed intention? Or, is it an attempt to make a more encyclopedic article? If it's my intentions, you have repeatedly based ALL your arguments on that (no matter how inappropriate that is). It it's encyclopedic, then, please, state how so (so far you haven't tried that appropriate line of argument at all).

BTW, since you have a problem with believing that South Asia and Indian Subcontinent are alternatively used terms, I am providing names of a few books that uses these two terms alternatively (of course there are many books that uses these two terms exclusively, but that can't possibly be an argument to show that it can't be or it isn't used alternatively):

• Alison Arnold, South Asia: the Indian subcontinent
• David Christian, Maps of time: an introduction to big history‎
• Jonathan B. Tucker, Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox
• Hooman Peimani, Nuclear proliferation in the Indian subcontinent
• Anne Digby & John Stewart, Gender, health and welfare

Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal wrote - "Well what is this Indian Subcontinent - or South Asia, as it has come to be known in more recent and neutral parlance - whose history will be interpreted in this book?" - while writing an introduction to Modern South Asia: history, culture, political economy (Routledge, 1998). I hope this will satisfy you somewhat, unless you have some argument that relies more on fact and less on psychoanalysis. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already elaborated about the undue weight issue: pay attention. Otherwise, there is little fact above, only additional gibbering in furtherance of your POV. In sum, I do not have a problem with believing that the two terms may be used alternatively, but take issue with your dickery when editing this article to conflate and hyperinflate that association. Various sources have been provided, somewhat as a result of your tendentious editing, which deal directly with the subcontinent. I have corrected your substantial -- and nonconsensual, not to mention nonsensical -- structural and contextual edits, which devoted (e.g.) more than half the article to terminology and definition unnecessarily. I see no reason to yield until otherwise compelled and, given your disruption, now may have no choice but to escalate this administratively. Nonetheless, as such, additional feedback from others is welcomed. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Half the information here is about definition and terminology, no matter how you try to disguise it. And the whole article is about an alternative definition to South Asia, no matter how foul your behavior is. I'm restoring the sensible structure once again.

Please, prove how Indian Subcontinent is so significantly different from South Asia. And, I'm sure you're capable of understanding that calling me names doesn't count as a proof.

And, please, follow up on your threat. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be back to your old tricks yet again. So, your POV -- not to mention nonconsensual -- edits have been reverted, save relevant references. Doing so further without garnering consensus will yield similar results. It is also clear that further discussion with you is rather useless, and this article has suffered as a result of your POV pushing and tendentious, disruptive editing regarding this topic. And, yes, your behaviour should be scrutinised. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, stop disruptive POV pushing. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please ... Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please. Your stupidity hurts the Wikipedia. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Flattery will get you nowhere -- you need a civility lesson. Your subjective, nonconsensual, and nonsensical edits will be corrected until you shape up. Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow! You really define the word civility. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahaahhahahahaa.... reminded of WP:CI! Wikipedia:Category intersection!! What I'm missing here!!! Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear little bossonic dressing, you think I breached WP:3RR ([1])? Sorry to tell you that: (1) I didn't make any revert back to sensible structure which you have been reverting constantly without any rational reason (apart from personal slanders and an acute case of incivility); (2) I did save the article from you whimsical removal of appropriately sourced and reputable material, which would have been a perfectly valid action even if it were a breach of 3RR. Devious ploys to outsmart another editor on top of being rude, crude and stubborn doesn't help the Wikipedia. You've been here long enough to know that. But, hey, you did breach 3RR perfectly. Very cute. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Protecting article

To be honest, both of you are in a low grade edit war that is just keeping within the technical definition of 3RR. I've tried to make sense of what you are fighting about but I admit that I can't figure it out. There doesn't seem to be a compelling difference between your preferred versions. Before this gets out of hand, why don't you two briefly explain why your preferred version is the better one (without invective!). Let's see if we can find some common ground and separate out the bones of contention. Meanwhile, I've protected the article for two weeks. No sense in getting a couple of excellent and useful editors blocked! --RegentsPark (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Complying

I have already explained my rational quite a few times. The point is half the information here is about definition and terminology, no matter how we try to disguise it. And the whole article is about an alternative definition to South Asia as these two terms are used alternatively alternatively. Check:

• Alison Arnold, South Asia: the Indian subcontinent
• David Christian, Maps of time: an introduction to big history‎
• Jonathan B. Tucker, Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox
• Hooman Peimani, Nuclear proliferation in the Indian subcontinent
• Anne Digby & John Stewart, Gender, health and welfare

Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal wrote - "Well what is this Indian Subcontinent - or South Asia, as it has come to be known in more recent and neutral parlance - whose history will be interpreted in this book?" - while writing an introduction to Modern South Asia: history, culture, political economy (Routledge, 1998).

I strongly would recommend that most topics that have a definition that's not more-or-less universally recognized should go by the layout — definition-scope-and the rest. I'm posting my rational again:

1. About half the article is about defining what falls within the region referred to as "Indian Subcontinent" it is only prudent to keep that information together. Spreading out that critical information over three different section is a deterrent to understanding area or the information presented.
2. The section that existed as "Human geography" was all about what country comes within the scope of "Indian Subcontinent" apart from one single sentence on the population (which already is pretty undefined, but that's a separate issue). Therefore, information is better organized if that single sentence is merged into the section that existed as "Physical geography". All that was required was to call it simply - "Geography".
3. (since a complaint about weightage was raised) I have merged the "Definition" and "Terminology" sections to reduce the fear of undue weight. I also have split the geography section to have a section on "geography" and another on "geology". Now both can be developed further.
4. (and when the other party started reverting sourced and relevant information out) I kept his precious structure intact, putting back the information (which was reverted again ASAP).

BTW, I also have tried in the past to take this to larger forum (check here) and to the other party's talk page (check here). Eventually this boiled down to a very low grade edit war where one party keeps putting out rationals and the other party keeps putting out slanders. It went to the level when I posted first to the talk page to get the other party's personal approval, which was hardly forthcoming in most cases. I gave up on discussions only when the other party explicitly refused to discuss. I am still pretty much willing to discuss, here or elsewhere.

Thanks that someone finally took some notice of this affair. I had already given up on community intervention. Thank you for restoring my faith in the community. Hallelujah. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For lack of interest in discussion sans invective and verbiage the bone of contention probably isn't going to be sorted out as expected. Perhaps, we have failed to keep our interests academic. Well, a project as big and as open is probably destined end up that way. Sigh. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't give up all hope :) I'm waiting to hear, hopefully with neither invective nor verbiage, from Bosonic Dressing. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we haven't heard from Bosonic Dressing, and since Aditya's rationale is plausible, I've restored his version. Note that the discussion is still open though. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been monitoring the situation, but have not had a chance to deliberate and thoroughly craft a response. I will be so in the coming days. Note that my silence does not at all imply concurrence with said edits. Stay tuned. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Will it be alright to edit the article now? Since my argument is the only argument put forward so far, can we use that argument to restructure the article? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the above. I have not had time to summarise my position due to other commitments, but the opposition and reasons are apparent above. And what additional restructuring is in mind: a repeat of the prior botched merge/redirect without consensus? If you attempt to edit without any agreement to changes, those edits will be reverted. Stay tuned. Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So threats and personal attacks still remain the only arguments on your part. Is anyone taking any notice of this? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But ... "Silence is more musical than any song" - Christina Rossetti. --Bhadani (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahahahahhaha... that was a good one. But, I still don't know how to respond to Bosonic dressing's war cry for consensus. If silence builds consensus, I already had it when I merged the article. :-) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For lack of counter argument I am reverting back to the logical structure. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin and history of term?

What is the origin and history of the use of the term "Indian subcontinent"? I came to this article as I had the impression the term was current well before India and surrounding countries were known to be on their own continental plate, and wanted to find out about this. Does anyone have good references on the topic? - David Gerard (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And I see I asked this six years ago too!

Where did the term "subcontinent" originate? The term predates the acceptance of plate tectonics - it was common in Kipling in the 19th century, back when plate tectonics wasn't even a crank theory, let alone accepted science. - David Gerard 17:18, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

I suppose I should ask the Reference Desk ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW - as far as I can tell, it's not common in Kipling. At all. No idea what I was talking about - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Six years later, let me try to clear your query. The Indian Subcontinent is strictly a geographical term that arose due to the distinction of the said landmass ( and resulting distinction of climate,vegetation,etc.) from the surrounding region, due to - The Himalayas in the north and north-east, The Hindu Kush in the north-west, The Baloch highlands/desert in the west, the Arakans in the east, the Arabian Sea in the south-west, the Bay of Bengal in the south-east and the Indian Ocean in the south. The term has nothing to do with plate tectonics. Although, it is worth mentioning that the Indian tectonic plate, whose movement caused the formation of the Himalayas, Hindukush,Baloch highlands/desert,Arakans, more or less corresponds to this geographical term. Geopolitixx (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not Understand why Afghanistan a country who was mostly apart of the Persia Empire who also ethnically and racially has nothing to do with the indian subcontinent, Only parts of southern Afghanistan is sometimes referenced as southern asia because of geographic and certain historical reasons. But actually Afghanistan as a whole country realistically is apart of south west asia, and has more in common with Middle eastern cultures such as (Iran, Iraq,Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Turkey) then any of the countries in Southern Asia combined. What does afghanistan have in common with India? , Afghanistan and Bangladesh? , or Afghanistan and Nepal? ect My point? Nothing ..so it is totally absurd that people who have no idea about Afghanistan and its culture are calling them selves experts and making bogus citations and articles on wikipedia. Oh Ps state department and United Nations have really no idea either about Afghanistan or it culture, if they did they would know how to deal with the mess in that country but each day shows how outside countries are making mistakes in a country which no peoples other than Afghans them selves understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.102.231 (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan culturally, historicall and geopolitically is an integral part of the indian subcontinent. Afghanistan is a lost province of india and shares much in common. The forms of music of india and afghanistan are considered cousins. Furthermore many Afghans have more in common with india then even with Pakistan, their immediate neighboor. The commonalities and connections between india and afghanistan are many h —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.116.64 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Indian reunification

This new article needs work. mrigthrishna (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was huffed, and I was wrong. It was huffed not oneth, not three'eth, but two'eth times.--85.164.222.55 (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Increasingly being replaced by south asia

I'm not contesting this statement but see that the article cites two articles, one on child-bearing and another on ethnicity, in support of the statement. Neither article seems to be appropriate for supporting such a statement. May I suggest removing the sentence from the lead while other, more appropriate, references are found and added to the text. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the sentence to attribute it to "some academicians". I believe, regardless of the subject of the cited article, a view on a South Asian topic endorsed by academicians like Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal is worth accepting as valid, unless, of course, there is a contrasting view made by experts as reputed. I may be wrong though. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge to South Asia

Under Definition, this article has FOUR citations for the statement that Indian subcontinent and South Asia refer to the same area. --Ettrig (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No. That'd be eight citations or more. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Should this page be renamed South Asia?

This is the term that is currently used, which does not privilege India over the other countries in South Asia. The Indian subcontinent is rarely used in any media, academic literature, UN references, political domains, etc anymore, so it is a term from a previous era. I would be in favour of renaming this page South Asia to reflect the current/contemporary reality. In line with this, I would be in favour of rewording the first sentence in the reverse. It currently reads, "The Indian subcontinent, which is also known as South Asia,..." If the page name is changed, it could read, "South Asia, which is also known as the Indian subcontinent,"...

Also see 'Definition' section, which pretty much says the same thing. And also, all city names in wikipedia are also current: Bengaluru, Kolkata, Mumbai etc to name a few. So why not follow this precedent and change the name and first line of this article accordingly? Bishdatta (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The two articles were merged earlier. But, some people think strongly that Indian Subcontinent must have a separate articles. I am not too sure why. But, since they are operating within the policies and guidelines, there's little that can be done at moment. It would definitely start another feud. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is little different than having different articles about the New World, Americas, Western Hemisphere, and the like ... all of which have a degree of synonymity and overlap, but are distinct concepts. They do not always mean the same thing. 76.67.18.192 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, all three articles mention all other usages in the lead, while you're totally bent on removing any mention of Indian Subcontinent from the lead of the article on South Asia. And, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument anyways. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

'Indian subcontinent' is already noted in the lead of that article, just differently -- in none of the articles above is the other term bolded and such, which is addressed in my commentary at SA and which has been glazed over. As well, an entire section of that article is devoted to the issue. (I advocate balanced text, not skewed as it was there.) And, yes, other crap definitely exists... 76.67.18.192 (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is my objection to merging the two articles. The sub-continent is supposed to be a geographical term. It came from geography. Even though this region is part of Asia, because of the Himalayas the weather and climate patterns are completely different from the rest of the Asia.

On the other hand, South Asia is a political term that represents the collection of political entities of this region. Sumanch (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits to Scope section

An IP editor keeps making this edit here which besides containing vandalism appears to be pushing a POV. Specifically this section:

" Irrespective of the aforesaid alleged definitions for the Indian Sub-continent, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) which is an organization of nations in the Indian Sub-continent consists of Pakistan , Afghanistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh , Sri Lanka and Maldives, an archipelago country which is part of the bigger Lakshadweepa archipelago which extends as far south as the Chagos which is historically part of India. So there is no controversy or vagueness, real or imaginary, whatsoever apropos the ambit or scope of the extent of the Indian Sub-continent."

Other than being badly written, entirely unsourced, and rife with editor commentary, it appears to be pushing a POV. However, I'm not an expert on this topic so if anyone else wants to tackle this and try to make sense of it (including finding sources for the claims) then go for it. SQGibbon (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Irrespective of the aforesaid alleged definitions for the Indian Sub-continent, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) which is an organization of nations in the Indian Sub-continent consists of Pakistan , Afghanistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh , Sri Lanka and Maldives, an archipelago country which is part of the bigger Lakshadweepa archipelago which extends as far south as the Chagos which is historically part of India. So there is no controversy or vagueness, real or imaginary, whatsoever apropos the ambit or scope of the extent of the Indian Sub-continent.

I used the word “alleged” because the various definitions are obviously mutually contradictory, and are not comprehensive. Besides, the term Indian Sub-continent is not a political term like South Asia or West Asia, but is also a term to define a geographical land mass. These terms transcend international political boundaries. For example, A present day atlas would depict the Plains of India to include most of Bangladesh and parts of Pakistan. Other geographical land masses are inter alia plateau of Tibet, British isles , Tableland of Iran, Mongolian Plateau, Siberian Plain or Scandinavian Peninsula. The fact that the definitions are from an encyclopedia does not ipso facto confer legitimacy to the statement and even encyclopedias are liable to err and be biased. I used the words, “now administered as though part…” because admittedly the fact that Aksai Chin is part of Kashmir is disputed by the Chinese., and to say that the area is allegedly part of China would be erroneous and would make the article be bereft of even a façade of neutrality!

The information that Maldives, an archipelago country is part of the bigger Lakshadweepa archipelago which extends as far south as the Chagos which is historically part of India are already available in the articles Lakshadweepa and Chagos and I am not responsible for the information in the aforesaid articles. Again, I replaced Greater India with Classical India because, the previous statement read… “The definition of the geographical extent of Indian subcontinent varies. Historically forming the whole territory of Greater India,”. Which is incorrect because Greater India admittedly includes areas which are not part of the India Proper like inter alia Transoxiana(area to the north of the Oxus and thus ipso facto does not include Afghanistan), Khotan, Tibet, Japan, China, Uzbekistan, all the area extending from Burma to Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines whereas Classical India is restricted to India Proper. In other words, Greater India, begins after India Proper ends.

Apropos the statement "So there is no controversy or vagueness, real or imaginary, whatsoever apropos the ambit or scope of the extent of the Indian Sub-continent.”, It is a fact that with the induction of Afghanistan, in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation all the countries of the Indian subcontinent have been included and the presence of other foreign countries can only be as observers and neither China nor Burma which are part of East Asia and South East Asia respectively can aspire for full-fledged membership. “Badly written, entirely unsourced, and rife with editor commentary”, I don’t think so! But if I broke a link, It is inadvertent because I tried to find out where a number of times but every thing seems prima facie fine and I am hence convinced that no link has been disrupted, and it is certainly not vandalism.

Sadly, SQGibbon in spite of my suggestion has with out using the discussion page to discuss issues pertaining to my edit which according to him are controversial amicably with me and arrive at a consensus amicably now is resorting to this trick.59.92.37.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC).

First, your vandalism. In your edit summary you stated "Sorry, I honestly am unable to find out where I allegedly broke the link. No vandalism!" You made this same edit here, here, here, and here all of which broke the same links and added text to the end of the page. Making the edit once can easily be a mistake, making the same edit three more times constitutes vandalism. I addressed your vandalism specifically with my edits here, here, and here.

Now for the section starting "Irrespective of the aforesaid alleged ...". You offer a definition of "Indian subcontinent" that differs from some of the others supplied in this section. Unfortunately this definition is based on an organization that uses the term "South Asian" in its name. It does not refer to itself as the "Indian Subcontinent Association for Regional Cooperation" so where is the relevance? Further, after checking their website, I do not see where they define "Indian Subcontinet" or even "South Asia". But even if they did why does their definition take absolute precedence over the other ones provided in the same section? These are all definitions from reliable and notable sources and the fact they disagree with each other justifies the tone of that section and the use of the statement "The definition of the geographical extent of Indian subcontinent varies." which all taken together contradicts and invalidates your statement "So there is no controversy or vagueness, real or imaginary, whatsoever apropos the ambit or scope of the extent of the Indian Sub-continent".

Given that the definition does vary your claim that there is no vagueness needs a citation. You didn't supply one. All you did was infer a definition based on the charter membership of one particular organization.

Finally, "Sadly, SQGibbon in spite of my suggestion has with out using the discussion page to discuss issues pertaining to my edit which according to him are controversial amicably with me and arrive at a consensus amicably now is resorting to this trick." What? I am the one who started the discussion on this page, you did not. SQGibbon (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, your phrase "now administered as though part" is in no way neutral. That region is controlled and administered by China. Whether it should be (as implied by your usage of "though") is not for us to comment on here or in the article. It is administered as part of China and that's all that needs to be said. Also, I did not change "Classical" back to "Greater" even though I don't see how it makes things any clearer. The classical period of India spanned many centuries and the boundaries changed throughout this time leaving a rather vague definition. There should be a better way to phrase this. SQGibbon (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Totally agreed. The removed part was a piece of unreferenced WP:OR that stood directly against reference facts. Putting that in may be an act of good faith, but calling its removal and act of vandalism doesn't seem to be made in that much of good faith. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Hi, I have removed the clutter from the lead section, including alternate names for the geographical region. On TopGun's reinclusion of Indo-Pak subcontinent – that is not how the word has been used generally. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources I provided for the term "Indo-Pak subcontinent" were independent mainstream sources. Here are more That provide such evidence of mainstream usage: in academic work [2], in news sources [3]. The term has been mentioned in 24,200 results of google books and 68,200 results of a google search for news about the term. I think this would be mainstream usage and can safely be added along side the other terms used. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Since those sources seem to be Pakistani sources, or at least sensitive to Pakistani concerns, I have restored mention of the alternative name with that qualification as a compromise. Shrigley (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but for record, the publisher is Pakistan based, but not a Pakistani source. It is an independent mainstream news source. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already initiated a discussion here, but it appears that more people are interested in POVpushing than constructive collaboration. We spent a considerable amount of time discussing the merger with South Asia on Talk:South Asia. There was no consensus to merge the two articles. There is enough evidence available to prove that these terms are not synonymous. Please take a look at South Asia, for example. The lead section of that article does not include "Indian subcontinent". Such insertions can be made into the body, not the lead. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I restored the lead to the version at the end of the RFC, which was by an anon sometimes earlier (check), which was reverted again. It made sense because significant synonyms (as opposed to long lists of exotic names that appear at times, especially in case of non-English terms) should appear along the title (not in bold face, though, if they are not significantly significant). In this case, using the significant synonyms without bold face probably is a good idea. Besides, I believe that the merge discussion, which did not end in a consensus, was not really about the content in the lead. That should be decided in terms of the subject and sources, not a discussion about a merge. Finally, It was never decided anywhere, on Wikipedia or off, that South Asia is the most significant synonym, while the referenced source clearly stated the two to be synonymous as well as a large number other sources quoted in the body. I find it logical that, while it may not warrant a merger, but the evidence of strong enough to incorporate that into the intro of the subject. It isn't the most brilliant of leads, but it makes more sense than the other leads so far proposed. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sources

[4] IP 220.225.78.6 has removed sources and content twice and instead asked to discuss in edit summary, so I've started this section. If appropriate reasons are not given for the edits, I will assume it as a repeated act of vandalism and revert again. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Interchangeability with "South Asia"

This is a fact has multiple sources at both articles. Do not remove or attribute this as "according to some". Actually there was an RFC to merge the two articles a few months ago: Talk:South Asia#Merging "Indian subcontinent" here. After all both articles acknowledge them being the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus for a merger according to Nearly Headless Nick two sections up. I will look at these sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I know, I didn't ask for a merge here... it was unchallenged that those sources acknowledge interchangeability of the terms and I reviewed them closely then. The reasons for no consensus was just plain numbers who didn't want it to be merged. It is a waste of time or probably WP:IDONTLIKEIT to go against the sources here and adding "unacceptable to many" without a source and attributing "some" for interchangeability when all the sources say so. And for a change, let the editor who is editwarring over it reply for his own edits. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Does TopGun have monopoly on editing articles containing the word "India"?

TopGun keeps reverting other editors' edits without providing any explanation and without discussing them. He does not call his actions editwar. But when other editors edit, he accuses them of editwar and advises them to discuss their edits and threatens them with being blocked (as he did to me). Perhaps he thinks that he has a monopoly on edit howsoever factually incorrect his edits may be. See the trail of the following edits of article “Partition of India” as evidence and proof. • (cur| prev) 16:15, 14 August 2012‎ Darkness Shines (talk| contribs)‎ . . (62,149 bytes) (-112)‎ . . (Sorry, but that is so factually incorrect it stuns me that you reverted it back in.) (undo) • (cur| prev) 16:07, 14 August 2012‎ TopGun (talk| contribs)‎ . . (62,261 bytes) (+112)‎ . . (Good. When you disagree, discuss on talk page, get a consensus and then make the change.) (undo) • (cur| prev) 02:57, 14 August 2012‎ Rao Ravindra (talk| contribs)‎ . . (62,149 bytes) (+72)‎ . . (Factually incorrect sentence "took place ... on 14 and 15 August, respectively by Indian Independence Act 1947". The Act did not state or provide for 14 August date.) (undo)

This evidence proves that he thinks that he has a right to reinstate a factually incorrect sentence but others do not have a right to delete or rephrase a factually incorrect sentence without his pre-approval (consensus, as he calls it as a euphemism).

Regarding the article on Indian subcontinent, the Indian subcontinent and South Asia are not identical. The former is a sub-set of the latter. I included the differences in the article. TopGun wants to gloss over the differences between two geographical entities and does not want them to be included in the article. Why? Do the differences not exist? Do the differences not suit his presumptive ideology on Indian subcontinent?

- Ravindra Rao Rao Ravindra (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the running paragraphs. I did not know that I have to provide a blank line between each paragraph to make them appear as separate paragraphs. I also do not know how to provide links to this trail of edits. Perhaps this may read better:

•[5] (cur| prev) 16:15, 14 August 2012‎ Darkness Shines (talk| contribs)‎ . . (62,149 bytes) (-112)‎ . . (Sorry, but that is so factually incorrect it stuns me that you reverted it back in.) (undo)

•[6] (cur| prev) 16:07, 14 August 2012‎ TopGun (talk| contribs)‎ . . (62,261 bytes) (+112)‎ . . (Good. When you disagree, discuss on talk page, get a consensus and then make the change.) (undo)

•[7] (cur| prev) 02:57, 14 August 2012‎ Rao Ravindra (talk| contribs)‎ . . (62,149 bytes) (+72)‎ . . (Factually incorrect sentence "took place ... on 14 and 15 August, respectively by Indian Independence Act 1947". The Act did not state or provide for 14 August date.) (undo)

Rao Ravindra (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Added the links for you, shall post on your talk page later to let you know the easiest way to look at diffs. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are done with your WP:TLDR try reading a bit about how consensus is achieved on wikipedia. You've not bothered to discuss a single time and have continuously reverted. That is editwar. If you do that again, I will report you. You can not force your edits in by repeatedly reverting, that will get you a quick block. And I don't think you've read what I wrote above.... There are enough sources which call them to be the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you discuss before reverting my edits (and many other editors' edits)? For you, it has always to be a one-way traffic. Others must discuss with you before editing any text regarding India. But you will not discuss before reverting others' edits regarding India. You think you a right of veto on edits by others on articles containing the word "India". You reinstated factually incorrect text [8] by reverting my edit [9] and another editor to chide you [10] by stating "that is so factually incorrect it stuns me that you reverted it back in". But according to you that is not editwar by you. Why - because YOU reverted and you think yourself exempt from discussing before reverting others' edits regarding India? You always consider yourself right in your Indophobia frame of mind.

Stop bullying other editors whose statements of facts about India and Pakistan do not suit your ideology. Come out of your Indophobia frame of mind. It is not helping Wikipedia. - Ravindra Rao Rao Ravindra (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What is a "hill station"?

From the article:

There are many Cultures, languages, various traditional people. This land represents unity in diversity as a symbol of specialty. In addition, many tourism and travels, pilgrimage centers, hill stations, and beaches are mainly found in countries like India

What is a Hill station? --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 15:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I is generally seen as a mountains region where people go to get away from the heat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.111.124 (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of content

Would the IP please explain why he is removing three nations and a reference from the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

...because it is inaccurate and unbalanced - the scope section details the components of the subcontinent, with 3 core countries. It is also an entity defined not just in the context of countries but physically. As well, do you maintain that a workbook is an authoritative reference despite others in the article? It is no wonder articles like this are little more than politically-biased cruft from ill-informed contributing editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.110.64 (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Then it is the scope section which requires expansion and modification. The region obviously comprises more than three countries after all. I will also refer you to WP:LEDE the lede is meant to be a short overview of an article, hence the other nations need to be mentioned. Perhaps I am not so ill informed as you might think. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

And that section is relatively broad, while the lede - since it is a summary - need not include the kitchen sink (otherwise, we should include Afghanistan, Maldives and perhaps Aksai Chin) but only the lowest common denominator ... which means just the 3 core countries. The reference has been moved down. 184.144.110.64 (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism has a specific meaning. And what was it you wrote earlier about not being ill-informed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.110.64 (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:LEDE any further removal of content by you will be treated as vandalism. You have been warned enough now. You have no consensus for your changes, your edits violate WP:LEDE, your blanking of content is vandalism. Stop, discuss and get consensus for your changes. Seek a WP:3O if you feel it is needed or try a WP:RFC Darkness Shines (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

South Asia

" It is a part of the region that is often mistakenly called "South Asia" by those who consider the greater Indian landmass to be geophysically a part of Asia, even though it was actually a part of Gondwana prior to major tectonic shifts millions of years ago."
No, it is often called "South Asia" for the simple reason that the current continent of Asia includes this landmass along its southern margin. While it is on a separate plate from the rest of Asia, this is not generally considered when enumerating the continents. In any event, the tone of the quoted material is very inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Khajidha (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. That statement is just plain ridiculous. What's more, it cites as source a book that has nothing to do with the subject. Why on earth is this still on the page? KelilanK (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And it contradicts the rest of the page. I would remove it, but the page is protected. --Khajidha (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Khajidha, would you remove that piece of strangeness from the article? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Diamond?

With regard to the strange matter of the supposed diamond shape of the subcontinent: I don't see the word "diamond" anywhere on the page cited or indeed anywhere in that book. If I'm wrong, please tell me where. Lesgles (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That source does not, this one does Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies p596 " The subcontinent is a roughly diamond-shaped area about 1,500 miles from north to south and the same east to west" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And Culture and customs of India p5 "India's diamond-shaped land mass is centered in the South Asian subcontinent" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguations of terms

Indian subcontinent: A *cultural* term refering to the region that was home to a set of cultures with shared or similar practices and mythological references and religions that form the Indic religions: Hinduism, Early Buddhism, Jainism, Sikkism, etc.

South Asia: A term predominantly used in American English to refer to a set of *countries* with similar economic and cultural background situated in southern Asia

SAARC: A *political* term representing a formal treaty between seven countries in the south Asian region.

All three are different. This article does justify its separate presence. -- Fgpilot (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The BBC uses Asian subcontinent

BBC example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/hi/about/newsid_8868000/8868544.stm

Asian subcontinent is politically neutral. Indian subcontinent is not. (BTW I'm sure some reporters don't follow the style guide.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.160.26 (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

An interesting share. I think it should be looked into. Thanks for sharing. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitions of the extent of the Indian subcontinent.

I think that the statement, 'Definitions of the extent of the Indian subcontinent differ but it usually includes the core lands of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh' can be made better because Indian Subcontinent means all those country of South Asia which are separated from rest of Asia by Himalayas and have different climatic conditions than the rest of Asia. So, the Indian Subcontinent contains more countries than the three countries mentioned. --Aumkaar Pranav (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for "all those country of South Asia which are separated from rest of Asia by Himalayas and have different climatic conditions than the rest of Asia"? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Content removal

Khajidha, you removed the following content saying - "removed rather disjointed sentences that did not seem to relate to the references provided for them".

According to historians Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, the Indian Subcontinent has come to be known as South Asia "in more recent and neutral parlance." Indologist Ronald B. Inden argues that the usage of the term "South Asia" is getting more widespread since it clearly distinguishes the region from East Asia. Some academics hold that the term "South Asia" is in more common use in Europe and North America, rather than the terms "Subcontinent" or the "Indian Subcontinent".

How exactly do they did not relate to the references provided for them? Have you checked "any" of the references? Can you tell what "any" of the references say? Your action and your rationale is particularly strange because the sentences say exactly what the references say. So much so that your action could have been considered WP:VANDAL.

And what to do mean by "rather disjointed"? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently I wasn't paying enough attention or just got confused with the mass of references, I meant to remove these sentences: ""Indian Subcontinent" is a term adopted and used by the British Empire.[4] The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are used interchangeably.[5]" They seem to be rather inelegantly tacked on and the long list of such disparate references for such simple statements smacks of synthesis. --Khajidha (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are uncomfortable about the copy, you are most welcome to improve it. Batter English is always welcome. But if you are suspicious of SYNTH, please note that all of the sources, there's quite a few provided, explicitly state or exemplify the information. Please make sure that your discomfort is WP:JDL. This article has a long history of JDL. And, just for reference, more on the subject is there in South Asia. It will be very helpful if you stick to fundamental policies and principles. "This is not elegant" or "this has a long list of refs" probably are not very good reasons to remove sourced and cited information. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

What does the sentence "The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are used interchangeably." tell us that is not already covered by the first sentence: "The region has been variously labelled as India (in its pre-modern sense), Greater India, the Indian Subcontinent and South Asia."? --Khajidha (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Us? I can only see you. If you meant the Wikipedia community by "us", then let me politely remind you that I have been a part of "us" way longer than you are. It would be nice to talk to a person (i.e. you) than talking to a nameless crowd of "us". That's the spirit of collaboration, and the spirit of Wikipedia.

Now, answering your question - these two sentences, while overlapping, are not about the same thing. India and Greater India are pre-modern concepts that are no longer in use. South Asia and Indian Subcontinent concepts still in use. And, if Wikipedia wants to be useful as an encyclopedia then it is important that we need to present (this "we" also includes you) an unambiguous and explicit perspective on the concepts that exist as entries/articles.

Finally, your argument has started to look strongly like JDL, as you already have used 4/5 uniqely different arguments to validate your removal of sourced, cited and relevant content: (a) they are disjointed, which you have failed to prove; (b) they don't relate to the sources, which is a blatant misrepresentation of facts; (c) they are inelegant, which is no ground for content removal; (d) they have a long list of sources, which is actually very good; (e) they smack of SYNTH, which looks strongly like a misreading of the policy; and (f)they are made redundant by another sentence, which is refuted. Do you think you have any other arsenal to use?

May be you don't like the copy, and how it is written. That, though subjective, is possible. You may try to improve the copy, but, of course, without removing information that are compliant with every policy, guideline and tradition here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional information

This article is lacking in information and requires more. Previous revisions have had information about other potential subcontinents for example the Middle East. Reasons for the removal is not having reliable sources but it is rather subjective so the Middle East could qualify as a subcontinent and I have heard many people call it a subcontinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlayStation 14 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I certainly consider the Middle East as a subcontinent, as I would Central America, the Caribbean and the Indies. The question is if reliable sources consider them the same. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

South Asia over lap content removal

Is there a specific reason content related to South Asia is being 'cleansed' from this article or what? It is certainly not 'unnecessary'. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Europe: Continent or subcontinent?

Why is there opposition to the alternative idea of Europe as a subcontinent, as is implied by the 6 continent model that treats Eurasia as a single continent? If India is a subcontinent by virtue of being separated from the rest of the Eurasian landmass by a range of mountains, then surely Europe can be interpreted in the same way due to its separation by a range of mountains. If not, then why is Europe a full continent and India/Pakistan et al only a subcontinent? What is the physiographical, geographical, and geological logic of this double standard? I tried to introduce this to the article using a referenced source, but another editor, AbelM7, has reverted me several times insisting the Europe is a full continent and only a full continent, and that no other interpretation is acceptable, regardless of the physical evidence or any referenced source. So I need to know the view of other editors as to whether it's acceptable to present the alternative interpretation of Europe as a subcontinent with a referenced source by a published author. Please review the recent edit history of the past week or so before weighing in on this issue. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 07:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you and I believe that Europe should be on this page. People are seeing Europe and Asia as a single continent so I don't see why there is opposition as to why Europe can't be on this page. AbelM7 stated that Europe has always been a continent but as people find out more they recategorise certain objects so maybe Europe should be on this page as people are seeing Eurasia as a single continent. The whole article is subjective and maybe should contain information about different regions because the Indian subcontinent already has its own page and if this page only contains information about that subcontinent it makes the whole page in a way pointless. PlayStation 14 (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As I noted above, the question is whether there are reliable sources indicating Europe is referred to as a subcontinent in the 6 continent model. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge

The page Subcontinent has no value over the target page - Indian subcontinent. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support subcontinent hardly qualifies for an independent geographical article and fails to establish the term's usage for other regions. The dictionary definition and other nomenclature is already covered here. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support since the only subcontinent we ever hear of really is the Indian subcontinent. I'm willing to change my opinion if there are sources proving otherwise (i.e. there really is another region also referred to as a subcontinent). Mar4d (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support I believed for a long time that if subcontinent only refers to the Indian Subcontinent and not others it should not have its own article. The page that is currently called "Subcontinent" should be removed which I suggested a while ago for the article being too subjective. PlayStation 14 (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Merged per consensus. But, how do I merge it with Talk:Indian subcontinent? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Talks are usually not required to be merged.. they can be left as they are (no harm is copying over though). --lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Expansion of this article

An RFC at history of India may result in major expansion of this article. Feel free to leave your comments there. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Reverts

Human3015, please use the talk page to discuss the map instead of engaging in abuse of Twinkle and blanket reverting anyone you do not agree with. The reasons for the change of map are specified. You should not engage in 3RR, especially when there are two users opposing you. Mar4d (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, both the maps showing national boundaries are problematic, the original one because it seems to be Indian Government POV and the second one because it omits the smaller countries of the subcontinent. The current one (I hope it remains current) without national borders is the best so far. But please keep looking! Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind an edited version of the previous map if it shows all boundaries (or no boundaries). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And I'm still wondering how I'm still unblocked, but I'm agree with Mar4d's that Map without Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Bhutan. Because he has made consensus on talk page with all editors who watch this page. But some of you may not get agree on map of Indian subcontinent without Nepal and Sri Lanka. But sorry guys, "consensus" is big deal. --Human3015 17:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What consensus? What are you talking about? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: Consensus has ben made here. Because Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Bhutan are not "core" parts of Indian subcontinent. Only India, Bangladesh and Pakistan are "core" part of Subcontinent. If you disagree with me, then prove that Nepal is "core" part of subcontinent.--Human3015 17:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I see. Please don't claim that a "consensus" has been reached unless it is reported on the article talk page. (User talk pages are ok to resolve two-way disputes privately. But you should include a summary on the article talk page when an agreement is reached.)

I don't agree that there is any issue of "core" vs "non-core" countries in the subcontinent. If the map doesn't show the area that we need to show, then the map is faulty. We can live with it if that is all we can manage at present. But we should aim to get the correct map eventually. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there was any consensus there either other than unilateral WP:SOUP without any affirmation from any one else on edits in question, but I guess this map will do for now... I agree with adding a full, NPOV map. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't find a consensus in there. Who agreed to you? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you always give nice views, you are ideal editor, but see, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives were never part of Mughal Empire of Akbar or Maurya empire of Ashoka, so how they can be "core" part of Indian subcontinent?? I can be wrong. Maybe I have less knowledge of subject. --Human3015 18:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• The article refers to the three countries which form the core, I'm not making any of this up. Add sources saying otherwise if you want to prove it, as per WP:RS. Sri Lanka, Maldives etc. are island countries and not connected to the mainland. I am not sure about Nepal and Bhutan, but historically, both these countries were treated separate from British India. That's why I think we should have a map where Pakistan, India, Bangladesh are shaded in dark, and Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan etc. can be shaded in light to show the extended definition. If someone can make a map, feel free to upload. Mar4d (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Now time has changed, we have to see Geography from eyes of History, if anyone has British India map, please upload here as Indian subcontinent, I think Goa was having Portugal rule, mark it in light shades as "extended" territory of Indian subcontinent. --Human3015 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Friends, please note that, my all comments here regarding "addition of map with British India/Mughal Empire/Maurya Empire/Goa etc were pure form of Sarcasm, here Mar4d nominated me for block for my reverts on this page, and I accepted my mistake there, but he don't accepts his mistakes, earlier he replaced current map with this map and he were justifying this map by saying only India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are core part of Indian subcontinent. So my comments were just sarcasm and I'm happy with current map. I may get blocked and I may not edit anymore for few days, and I request all editors here to watch some pages carefully for vandalism, specially pages related to Kashmir conflict. Thank you. --Human3015 19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion could've been had after the initial revert, per WP:BRD, rather than continue the warring, j/s. Sadly, while I see your point that the boundaries are in dispute and the current map is a clever way to get around that, it's also not as useful. TBH, geographic maps are annoying, a As you said in the WP:EWN, "(...) all definitions agree that Pakistan, India and Bangladesh form the 'core' of the subcontinent; the other countries (Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives etc.) are usually only described in extended definitions. If there is a better map that shows the three countries in dark and the extended countries in lighter shade, that would be the best map." Sadly, I can't find anything like that on google, let alone find one that's within licensing policies. I'll admit I'm not too knowledgeable about these disputed territories. Maybe we could put together an agreed upon set of requirements for this map and submit it at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop ? ― Padenton|✉   07:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We call America America not USA-sia

Why not call India India Or Europe West Asia 82.8.231.230 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not register as a user and read some reliable sources? Do you know of Bharata Khanda and Bharata Varsha? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The western limits and Meaning

Due to another Wikipedian's 'doubt', I would like to elaborate on the reasoning behind this edit. Clearing up confusion over western limits of the subcontinent with sources and clarity is a necessary step in the path for this article's elevation. It is my request that any rebuttal or revision be accompanied by fact-based reasoning rather than personal doubt.

Consistency across Wikipedia articles, especially those dealing with physical geography, geology or other scientific areas, is an aim that we surely agree on. Difference between the terms 'subcontinent' and 'South Asia' is crucial here. When delineating a subcontinent, political, ethnic and cultural boundaries are not given importance. It is a term that refers to "parts of continents ... on different tectonic plates from the rest of the continent" according to WP's 'Continent' article. The South Asian subcontinent lies on upper portion of a distinct plate tectonic, with the article on 'Eurasian Plate' clearly defining it as one landmass which is not encompassed but rather bordered. A more detailed look at areas through which the Indian plate's western edge cuts (Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2010, US Geological Survey) reveals that plains of Indus basin, explicitly east of/below mountain ranges in Balochistan, FATA, KPK and G-B, rest on the plate whereas those mountainous regions do not. This plate boundary roughly coincides with the Indus river and western borders of Punjab and Sindh, excluding all other aforementioned provinces/territories near-completely.

Another factual and scientific basis for this assertion can be found in geographical limits of Ecozones. The northern and westernmost portion of Indomalaya ecozone is defined as being the Indian Subcontinent. In this definition as well, an area roughly corresponding to plate tectonics separates the subcontinent from Palearctic ecozone west of Indus river. We can therefore assert that in terms of natural wildlife, climate and general topography, plains of Punjab and Sindh differ significantly from highland/mountainous regions to their immediate west and north.

Hence, arguments from geology and natural science clearly establish that the Indian subcontinent ends at western edge of its associated plate (roughly corresponding to river Indus). This should be our primary focus since the term subcontinent is inherently descriptive of geography, and thus should be defined by geographic sciences, although sociological approaches based upon historic accounts of foreign travellers (such as Al-biruni, Ibn Battuta, etc.), ethno-linguistic groups and cultural domains through antiquity portray the Indus river as more than a natural boundary.

At the end, however, an article on Indian subcontinent should define it consistently with science-based articles that cite this term. Either all those articles mentioning it should be altered because one person may 'doubt' that they define it correctly, or its Total Area should reflect scientific consensus and sources that mark its western edge clearly as the Indus River and Indian Plate. Even this article's main picture draws a clear distinction between plains which are part of the subcontinent and elevated terrain that is not. Any views contrary to this are most welcome before hair trigger revisions.
R2d2 ka baap (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Indian continent and Indian plate are not interchangeable terms. Although Indian plate only covers a part of Pakistan, all historical references refer to prepartition Pakistan region as a whole a part of Indian subcontinent. Unless you have a reference negating that, there can't be a possibility where your edit would even remotely be eligible. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The argument being made now is of a 'historic' (socio-political) nature, and so it is established that the subcontinent at least in scientific terms does in fact end at the plate boundary. Now for your assertion without evidence that 'subcontinent' referred to the entire 'Pakistan region' (non-specific), I have provided a book reference at the end of fourth paragraph which indeed negates your misconception. Problem is, historic accounts do not refer to South Asia as 'subcontinent' which is a relatively recent scholarly term geared more towards a geological entity separated from the Eurasian landmass/plate by natural barriers, hence subcontinent. But the imperfect term that was used to refer to a so-called cultural or civilizational entity was 'Hindustan', even by European explorers before they exchanged it for 'India'. Now the basic etymology of that name from the Persian perspective whence it was coined, clearly and unambiguously in all sources refers to Hindustan as the land beyond Indus river. Unfortunately, the multidisciplinary evidence is so overwhelming that listing it all would be near impossible, although I have listed one as mentioned earlier had you cared to look. A note to this source shall be added, which makes use of the current term 'subcontinent' and its historical equivalent 'Hindustan'.
R2d2 ka baap (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The article already has a source, so my assertion is not without a source. If a source claims "Hindustan" to be a specific part of the subcontinent, that needs to be added to Hindustan. This page however states it pretty correctly. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The source in the introduction is a dictionary definition which does not contradict my stand. It refers to a 'peninsula' below the Himalayas and bounded by the ocean. Are mountain ranges in Balochistan, Northwest part of the same 'peninsula'? The region is divided by India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is not the same as including all of those lands (such as Andaman or Laccadive Islands). Moreover, it refers to the 'core lands' of these countries, not 'all lands', hence my stance is entirely consistent with the remaining article and its sources.
R2d2 ka baap (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Provide source for "Indian subcontinent" not for "Hindustan".--Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 20:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an inconsistency you are both forgetting, between referring to the 'historic' argument for subcontinent and rejecting its equivalent term in sources. You do understand that historical sources of travellers have no such vocabulary of 'subcontinent'. It is a recent term that originated from the need to explain geographical isolation of this landmass from remaining Eurasia. You will not find foreign travellers to South Asia using the explicit term 'subcontinent', but rather 'Hindustan' or 'India' variously. The source in question similarly emphasizes that 'Hindustan' as quoted actually referred to the subcontinent in this context, and after equating the two, he goes on to explain the boundary of the subcontinent at the Indus river.

However, I shall provide another source among several others. Robert Kaplan states in The Revenge of Geography, "The Indian Subcontinent is ... defined on its its landward sides by the hard geographic borders of the Himalayas to the north, the Burmese jungle to the east, and the somewhat softer border of the Indus River to the west." This acknowledges the historic fact that Achaemenids and Sassanids treated the Indus river as the boundary of their domains, as well as the plateau west of it being considered part of the Iranian cultural continent. Mind you we are now arguing on the subcontinent as a socio-political construct, am glad you both refrained from arguing against it as an established fact of plate tectonics/geology.

Lastly, the article on 'Indus River' states "The lower basin of the Indus forms a natural boundary between the Iranian Plateau and the Indian subcontinent". In fact, this article's first source defines Indian subcontinent as "the part of Asia south of the Himalayas which forms a peninsula extending into the Indian Ocean". South of clearly implies it excludes the mountains of Himalayan range as well as other ranges in Northwest, like other definitions. In plain english, a peninsula cannot include land that has mountainous or starkly non-peninsular characteristics, whether it be in its northern limits or western limits. Don't protect a version riddled with contradictions. For the umpteenth time: consistency, folks.
R2d2 ka baap (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

R2d2 ka baap, I appreciate your comment. you have provided one source, but what about [11], one can give hundreds of reference stating that whole of Pakistan is part of Indian subcontinent. Moreover, you are saying "Hindustan=Indian subcontinent", ok, but we can also get numerous sources saying "South Asia=Indian subcontinent", [12] what about that? If we consider "South Asia" then even Afghan will be part of Indian subcontinent. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 23:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

1. I have already explained that dictionary reference earlier on (read above). Nowhere does it state the whole of Pakistan is part of the subcontinent, but merely that it is a "peninsula" region which is now divided between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Again, that it is divided between these countries is not the same as includes the entire territory of all these countries. Basic English comprehension. I'm sure you are aware that a large part of Pakistan is not peninsular plains but rather the opposite.

2. I am not saying Hindustan=Indian subcontinent. I said the source which you misinterpreted is actually putting a quote in context, and saying in that context Hindustan was referring to the 'subcontinent'. So only in that particular context were the two terms equated.

3. Numerous sources may say South Asia is interchangeable with the Indian subcontinent, but then that is why there is a separate Wikipedia article called South Asia which uses a broader definition to include Afghanistan and in some cases Iran. Whereas the subcontinent is always referred to as ending once mountainous regions beyond Indus river begin to form a distinct plateau. Show me a source which includes for example the hinterlands of Afghanistan as Indian subcontinent, whereas most probably include it in South Asia. In layman's terms, Indian subcontinent = distinct peninsula (including in your own provided oxford dictionary source), South Asia = broader geographic region with no natural barriers as such. Equating the two serves to obfuscate our discussion.

By the way, so far I have quoted at least two academic and scholarly sources. You've given me the Oxford dictionary (which you misread) and a BBC article indirectly quoting Zawahiri. I can't blame hazrat Zawahiri saheb for not knowing the nuanced differences between South Asia and Subcontinent, especially when neither of these English terms were probably ever spoken by him and when he is trying his best to avoid a friendly visit by predator drones.
R2d2 ka baap (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

read these [13], [14]--Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 00:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Both sources seem to support the position that the subcontinent 'drifted' on its tectonic plate and collided with the Eurasian landmass, thus reinforcing my argument from geology earlier. If you stand by these sources, therefore, you will have to concede that the subcontinent when it was drifting had its northwestern edge at the plate boundary. For your reference, here is the map which shows where that plate boundary is juxtaposed over political borders. Since we have switched from geological, socio-political and now back to geological perspective, is there any substantive proof in any of these areas that the plate boundary does not approximate the subcontinent's boundary?
R2d2 ka baap (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is from the article South Asia: The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are used interchangeably. According to historians Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, Indian Subcontinent has come to be known as South Asia "in more recent and neutral parlance." Indologist Ronald B. Inden argues that the usage of the term "South Asia" is getting more widespread since it clearly distinguishes the region from East Asia. Some academics hold that the term "South Asia" is in more common use in Europe and North America, rather than the terms "Subcontinent" or the "Indian Subcontinent".

refs

The point being, Indian subcontinent is not explicitly the area bordered by the Indus river. That would only be the Indian plate. Plus, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I've reverted you, do not reinstate this edit without consensus as that would be editwar after you've been made aware of the policies. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been watching this debate for a while without saying anything because there seemed to have been more heat than light. The term Indian subcontinent has always been used to refer to the former British India (minus Burma, but with the smaller States on the periphery). This is the useful notion of Indian subcontinent. Other uses, even if valid in some sense and appropriately sourced, are still pretty useless. So there is no point arguing about what is the "right" notion of Indian subcontinent. Let us drop this issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Topgun, not withstanding your threats, you have given me absolutely no new information by pointing to the South Asia article (in fact Human already tried that earlier). Once again, there are reasons why — despite a well sourced paragraph on interchangeability of terms not border limits — these are two distinct articles and the RfC for merging them was rightly rejected. Prime among them being that in definitions of South Asia, Afghanistan and at times south-eastern parts of Iran tend to be included, whereas no source has included Afghanistan as being part of the subcontinent since this term is of a distinct geographical nature like Tibetan plateau, Arabian peninsula, etc. with definable boundaries. Now, keep in mind you are pointing to another article, with no actual link or source provided in your reverted text itself. So a reader wanting to verify these claims would have to come to this talk page to get background on it. How about you actually add a source for your unreferenced assertion of Area up to Durrand in the article, and we shall proceed thence.

Meanwhile, let me make things more clear. Useful notions, and 'this minus that', are all subjective WP:OR WP:POV if they are not well-referenced. The Indian subcontinent actually is 'explicitly' referred to as being bordered by Indus in those two sources which your revert deleted, to be replaced - again - by no sources whatsoever. This is why I replied to Human's warning of 3RR with leaving the better sourced version, or rather the only sourced version, as it is whilst we resolve it here (before TopGun reverted out of nowhere only to accuse others of edit war). Also, despite any overlap Indian subcontinent has a different use than 'Indian plate', in much the same way Arabian peninsula has different meaning than 'Arabian plate'. One has to do with human geography, society, history, etc. and the other purely related to geology/plate tectonics. If you read the article, you would realize "having a certain geographical or political independence from the rest of the continent" implies an ethnographic or socio-cultural dimension, where clearly there is stark divergence historically between plains regions and the mountainous plateau to its west.

Most sources, including the main definition in this article, actually refer to the subcontinent being bordered by Koh-i-Sulaiman, Hindu Kush and Karakorum-Himalaya ranges in the north/west, with a few like those I provided that explicitly call Indus a border. This is why in my original edit and calculation, I stated that the above ranges were used as the western frontier, which is entirely consistent both with sources and the map used for this article. However, because semantics would bog down the discussion to whether bordered means encompassing, and hence a part of Afghanistan should also be part of subcontinent, I have provided two sources which actually show it refers more to where these ranges begin (going westwards beyond Indus valley) and floodplains end. Punjab and Sindh's western borders only approximate and are not exactly the same as path of Indus, therefore we can use it as a good measure of where plains end and aforementioned ranges begin, given the logic behind both provincial borders being drawn to begin with. R2d2 ka baap (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The number (with tilde to signify it is arguable) has been left as is, unreferenced. A note has been added to explain varied definitions of the term with sources. Hence, you are both asked to give your revert trigger fingers a well-earned rest. This matter is now closed. R2d2 ka baap (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Any changes to the article needs WP:CONSENSUS. You may not unilaterally close the matter right after reverting to a version you were trying to push in. You've been told already by the two above to drop it. You have been provided enough sources that have negated your claim of the subcontinent explicitly being upto Indus river. Now what a few sources claim has due weight to be discussed in the body (not the infobox) or not might be something that can be a possible inclusion only pending consensus and worded per consensus and not through editwar. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The change in question is not a revert, but addition of referenced note which does not alter or outright dispute the original version/number. It is relevant as an addendum to the number in infobox, which is an explicit quantitative claim that needs qualification. Since no references to back the claim have been provided, the number was left untouched, but a simple note has been added with sources to support this part of the article which states "the definition of the geographical extent of this region varies." There is no significant alteration of article in adding a note, and until this point the validity of sources or the alternative point of view they present has not been directly addressed by you or other users. Hence, it was seen as a reasonable compromise which accommodated both the unreferenced original number, and the referenced alternative definitions as a note. My apologies for saying the matter is closed, let it remain open till the issue is resolved. As an aside, does the addition of references to a non-FAR article also require WP:Consensus when not altering the original text at all? R2d2 ka baap (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You added content which was objected upon and continued to add it. Just the number was not the objection rather the claim you were adding. You need to get consensus here before adding it. Any change made to wikipedia, if objected (FA or not), needs to gain consensus. See WP:BRD which you've been ignoring. There's been no compromise at all as you were the only one calling it a compromise and "closing the matter". As you pointed out that the definition varies per the article itself. Adding such a claim with sources, in continuation to that text would make sense (depending on what the consensus is reached on the wording of that claim) but to the infobox as a note is WP:UNDUE weight to non standard definition. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Afghanistan

A bunch of IP editors have been removing the mention of Afghanistan as being part of the Indian subcontinent. When I checked the source, I found it to be vague on the issue. So, at the moment I have to say that this was unsourced content. If somebody has a better source, please feel free to add it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Indian Subcontinent is strictly a geographical term that arose due to the distinction of the said landmass from the surrounding region, due to - The Himalayas in the north and north-east, The Hindu Kush in the north-west, The Baloch highlands/desert in the west, the Arakans in the east, the Arabian Sea in the south-west, the Bay of Bengal in the south-east and the Indian Ocean in the south. Considering this, Afghanistan is slightly out of the area in question and therefore NOT included in the correct definition of the geographical term 'Indian subcontinent'. Afghanistan however, can and is, mentioned in the definition of the term South Asia.( a term which is more historical/cultural) Geopolitixx (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could state how the term arose, along with reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

South Asia

This article frequently runs into the "tail wagging the dog" problem. Ostensibly, the article is about the Indian subcontinent. But all that people want to talk about is "South Asia". Well, there is another page on it and all the debates can happen there. I propose that we get rid of all references to "South Asia" from this article, and replace them a one-liner that says, "Sometimes, the term "South Asia" is used interchangeably with Indian subcontinent". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Indeed, that is what my impression was when I read this article for the first time after its mention in the @Peeta Singh's AE appeal case. One line, or at most a short paragraph-section at the end, should be enough. This article should predominantly be about Indian subcontinent. I support a major surgery. Give it a try! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya, thanks for proposing this. I absolutely agree that this article is about Indian Subcontinent, so the focus on the term South Asia needs to be reduced. I feel that the content, prior to the recent set of edits, was reflective of this sentiment. While the focus should stay on Indian subcontinent, from nomenclature perspective, it is still important to state that several other terms have been used as alternatives for the Indian subcontinent (South Asia, Asian subcontinent, South Asian Subcontinent, etc), with South Asia being the most commonly accepted (along with the associated reasoning). I think this previous version did a good and adequate job [15].

Ms. Welch's attempts to ensure NPOV are not clear to me, especially to claim that NPOV requires to show that "Indian subcontinent and South Asia are not synonymous" appears WP:OR. While several WP:RS explicitly state that South Asia is an increasingly popular & neutral term for Indian subcontinent, I am unable to see a RS that explicitly states that "South Asia may not be used for Indian subcontinent". Going about proving this in a roundabout manner (by saying that some source includes Afghanistan/Iran in South Asia while they are typically not included in Indian Subcontinent, and so South Asia should not be used for Indian subcontinent) is original research and WP:SYNTHESIS ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"). If there is indeed such an explicit quote from a RS, we can certainly quote from it. Js82 (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Js82: I ignore your allegations because they are without edit-diffs from this article's edit history, and seem like your confusion/opinions/prejudices/wisdoms. You misunderstand WP:SYNTHESIS and other wikipedia content guidelines, which without edit-diffs and liberal speculations has been a long standing issue with you. I ignore that too. @Kautilya3: I have removed the re-inserted South Asia into lead by @Js82. I have also added summary from geology and geography-related discussion from main. Per WP:LEAD, your comment above and per the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Js82:, the "neutrality debate" is a fake one. The region being called the Indian subcontinent has been called "India" (and Hindustan and Al-Hind) for more than two millennia. The creation of a state called "India" in 1947 doesn't change these facts. Had the state called itself "Hindustan", as Jinnah wanted it to, all the other states would have been quite happy to call themselves part of "India". There is a historical India and there is a modern state of "India". We should not confuse one for the other. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:: The NPOV I was referring to is the one Ms Sarah Welch wanted (that Indian Subcontinent and South Asia are synonymous, and not synonymous). To show non-synonymous, they are doing WP:Synthesis. They have conveniently now chosen to "ignore" my post on that and personally attacked me again. I agree that such NPOV is fake, and not required, hence my edit removing any attempts for establishing this NPOV via roundabout and confusing WP:OR approaches (showing Iran is sometime part of South Asia, while not of Indian SC, hence not synonymous). Js82 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

They are not synonymous. Even if we ignore the Iran bit, Afghanistan still makes a difference. "South Asia" is a vague idea. Every scholar, department or agency can make it mean whatever they want it to mean. So, if some scholars say that they will use the two terms synonymously, they are ignoring the Afghanistan difference. But they can do so because "South Asia" is an ill-defined term. They can redefine it to whatever they want. Indian subcontinent on the other hand, is a term with century-old usage and it also has a geological significance. You can't equate a well-defined term with an ill-defined term. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

We have to go with what WP:RS states. These are WP:RS exemplary direct quotes: "Indian subcontinent — or South Asia — as it has come to be known in more recent and neutral parlance", "It is very common today in academic and official circles to speak of the Indian subcontinent as 'South Asia', thereby distinguishing it from an 'East Asia'." On the other hand, any "NPOV" attempts to show that "South Asia may not be used for Indian SC" are still lacking a WP:RS that actually makes a direct statement to that effect. Only convoluted WP:Synthesis. Js82 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Js82: Neither @Kautilya3 nor I have removed that. The summary and those WP:RS have been and continue to be summarized in the main article's Nomenclature section. The article needs to explain the stated "neutral parlance" view and it has, and does that better than before by explaining "to whom and why is this neutral". But as @Kautilya3 notes above, the article needs to focus on Indian subcontinent, and not wag the "South Asia" tail. The remaining issue is whether a cherrypicked part about "with the South Asia term favored in recent neutral parlance" you keep revert warring with, should be in the lead. The answer is no, per WP:LEAD and as @Kautilya3 explained above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Kautilya3 hit the nail well on its head I believe, and I agree with his proposal. These changes have unfortuntely resulted in the article becoming stuffed with way too weasel-wordish/weird/erroneous sentences, and hence, they are not an improvement to the quality of its content. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Js82:, It is not clear to me what you mean by we have to go by what the WP:RS state. Go where?

There are hundreds, nay thousands, of WP:RS that happily use the term Indian subcontinent [16]. I suspect your commitment to WP:RS is rather selective. Even Bose and Jalal, who say that South Asia is "neutral", use the term "subcontinent" 67 times in their book!

The Ronald Inden statement that you have selectively quoted, has immediately prior to it: India and its neighbours have for long been said to form a 'subcontinent' unto themselves within the larger Asian continent. He uses the term "subcontinent" 32 times in his book. He is certainly not saying we should stop using the term!

As for the RS that explicitly say they are not synonymous, here is one: Although most often used synonymously, the concept of the Indian subcontinent is somehwat different from that of South Asia; the term `Indian subcontinent' is a geographical one, meant to differentiate it from the rest of the Eurasian content while, as stated before, the term `South Asia' is a political designation. That is why if you replace "Indian subcontinent" by "South Asia" willy nilly, you often end up nonsensical sentences.

And here is California Board of Education saying they won't replace "India" by "South Asia" in their history textbooks. Of course, what they mean by "India" is the same as what we are talking about, the Indian subcontinent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, perhaps I should point out. An WP:RS is not something that throws up random opinions. They also need to present facts and analysis and provide scholarly insight. Bose and Jalal don't fit the bill, even though they fit some people's POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Kautilya, I never said that subcontinent term is not used, so there is no point stressing that it is used x number of times here or y times here. I am saying that multiple WP:RS state explicitly that South Asia is an alternative term, because of multiplicity of reasons ("neutrality", "academic usage", "official usage", "distinguish from East Asia", ....). As it is, such sourced content should not be removed, or challenged by us, unless a WP:RS explicitly challenges it. Even the quote you have shared above starts off by accepting that "Although most often used synonymously...", so again, no real challenge. In fact, the previous line states that "the nomenclature Indian SC is becoming less and less common". We can still of course include this quote and represent it accurately, but let's not do OR and synthesis to imply something that is not directly stated in any source so far. Js82 (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid you misunderstand our policies. The criteria are verifiability and WP:NPOV, where the latter means consensus among all the reliable sources. Further, not everything that is verifiable warrants inclusion. If one sources claims something but other sources don't agree, if not by words, by their practice, it is clear that claim does not have consensus. The numbers I have provided show that the authors making the claim themselves disregard it in practice. So their claims are even less worthy of inclusion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I am not misunderstanding our policies. But you seem to be applying different standards at different places. This is what you had stated recently about NPOV on Narendra Modi talk page [17] : " Vanamonde93 has cited a peer-reviewed scholarly article published in the Journal of Asian Public Policy. It is improper to call it "one person's view". Unless you produce a peer-reviewed scholarly article of equal quality that takes an opposite point of view, it is improper to raise an issue of NPOV"

So, invoking this understanding of NPOV, I request you to "produce peer-reviewed scholarly articles of equal quality that takes an opposite point of view," where the opposite point of view here means "explicitly challenging the usage of South Asia for Indian SC". It does not matter whether they use the term Indian SC in isolation a million times. That is besides the point, since despite that, they categorically state that South Asia is a "neutral/academic/official/increasingly used" term for Indian SC. That's all I want to be retained in the article (the way it actually was until a few days ago), without insertion of confusing/unnecessary "fake" NPOV based on synthesis. (Iran and Afghanistan and so on...). Js82 (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I have already produced two sources above, one of them reporting on a community of scholars, who have carefully considered all the issues, and made a justified decision. This carries a lot more weight than a personal opinion of a couple of scholars, provided with no analysis of any kind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the point-to-point reply. See above for my comments on your first source (it does not dispute the usage of South Asia, rather states " most often used synonymously", "Indian SC becoming less and less common"..). As for the second source: It is just a decision of California education board, and I have no issues with it being stated as such. Note however that you are still missing my point when you cite this source in response to my request: To repeat, I am not contesting at all the usage of the term Indian subcontinent. On the other hand, this California board decision seems in all likelihood to be a response to the extreme THIS OR THAT proposal, i.e., a proposal to " completely replace Indian SC with South Asia in educational material". Of course I am not agreeing either with that proposal. I hope you see the nuance. In short, all I am saying we should state is, "Both terms are being used", and "South Asia is increasingly popular per academics/officials" as per WP:RS. Based on your 2nd source, we cay have something on these lines as the summary : "South Asia is an increasingly popular alternative term for the Indian subcontinent, especially for neutrality and amongst academics/officials, although it is not agreed to be a replacement term." On the other hand, we cannot use your 2nd source to block inclusion of this statement "South Asia is increasingly popular per academics/officials". Again, I hope you see the nuance. Best wishes. Js82 (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I tried, and I read most of these two threads. It boils to these two points:

• Js82 doesn't see the subtilities in the usage of the two terms "Indian (sub)continent" and "South Asia," which is a NPOV-issue for MSW. Instead, their focus is on another NPOV-issue, namely the (preferred) substitution of "India" by "South Asia."
• To underscore this point, Js82 wants to include his Bose and Jalal quote, giving it a lot of weight to press his point;

How about trying to reach WP:CONCENSUS, instead of pushing one point of view and harassing MSW? See also WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it does not boil down to those two points. I am nowhere asking for a substitution of India by South Asia (I have explicitly stated this in the posts above), and neither am I unaware of the subtleties of using both terms. In any case, I'm out of this. (EDIT: (for the record) since I just don't have anymore time/energy to go over this again, and not because I approve of whatever has been stated by other editors.) Js82 (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Very wise. NB: "Indian subcontinent" may be related to Sikhism, given the contentious interpretatins of the term "Indian," and the struggle for independence from India by Sikhs. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Uncalled for WP:Aspersions and harassment from the editor, noted here [18] for the record. Js82 (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary

@Kautilya3: Please add the pub year, isbn and page number for the real OED source you just checked. I am looking at a paper copy, page 1435, edition by Angus Stevenson and Maurice Waite, published by Oxford University Press in 2011, and I don't see the "has a distinct geographical, political, or cultural identity" part. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sara, I am accessing the online version (via my library). It doesn't have a date. I am copying the entire text below for you to compare:

OED entry

1. A subdivision of a continent which has a distinct geographical, political, or cultural identity; (also) a large land mass somewhat smaller than a continent. 1845 W. Darby Univ. Gazetteer (ed. 4) 51/1 The great Western [mountain] systems..range along or at no great distance from the western coasts of both sub-continents [sc. North and South America]. 1863 T. H. Huxley Evid. Man's Place Nature iii. 154 From central Asia eastward to the Pacific islands and subcontinents on the one hand, and to America on the other. 1908 Fortn. Rev. Sept. 416 What enemy has Australasia at her doors? The sub-continent is isolated. 1913 C. R. Enock Republics Central & South Amer. xvi. 519 The Greeks, the Phoenicians, the Romans,..have no counterpart in the great continent and sub-continent of Latin America. 1920 Nation 20 16 The ‘Indian States’..cover, in various degrees of subjection to Great Britain, over a third of the South Asian sub-continent. 1950 Amer. Fern Jrnl. 40 112 The Antarctic floristic element is of great interest to the plant geographer for its suggestion of early migration paths from an antarctic subcontinent. 1973 Times Lit. Suppl. 23 Mar. 318/2 The breakaway of Bangladesh has effected a second partition of the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent. 1990 B. R. Allanson et al. Inland Waters Southern Afr. ii. 9 The coastal rimland of the southern subcontinent has been subject to successive elevations and subsequent coastal abrasion. 2b. = Indian subcontinent n. at Indian adj. and n. Special uses 1a. 1907 Imperial & Asiatic Q. Rev. Apr. 266 The difficulties to be faced vary in different parts of the subcontinent, and each problem will be most easily solved provincially. 1916 A. E. Duchesne Democracy & Empire x. 69 The beliefs and traditions of the communities composing the population of the subcontinent. 1951 Life 28 May 20/2 India is always hungry... Even when food is available, distributing it throughout the subcontinent is complicated by crude transportation. 1989 Guardian (Nexis) 20 Mar. Hinglish, the glorious jumble of good, bad and ugly English used in the subcontinent. 2005 Delicious Nov. (Flavours of India Suppl.) 19/1 Lentil-based dal is a menu essential across the sub-continent.

Interestingly, the 1920 quote refers to "South Asian sub-continent"! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• That is interesting. Though the South Asia in question seems much larger than the current South Asia (the 'third' probably includes all of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma which leaves a very large 2/3rd elsewhere - Afghanistan? Tibet? SE Asia?).

  No, I think th "South Asian sub-continent" in the quote just meant what we now call the Indian subcontinent. The "Indian states" were the princely states, which represented a third of it. The rest was "India", i.e., the British-ruled territory. Since they didn't call the princely territory "India", a term like "the subcontinent" was necessary. It doesn't look like Burma was included in the subcontinent, though I am not sure of it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Perhaps you can add the index details to this cite, to the "future curious" who may feel puzzled or get annoyed after looking at the free on-line or expensive OED paper copy version. It has to be somewhere, some link, or just the name of global-library-network link name on your computer. I like the 2005 entry: "lentil-based dal is a menu essential across the sub-continent" part!! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I added "Cite OED" refs. One of them seems to be publicly visible and the other is not. I could'nt find the "lentil-based dal" bit in the online version :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:, @Kautilya3:, Hi, thanks for having put some effort into expanding this article. Looks neat. However, there are few things that have raised my concerns. I believe this....;

• "Some sources such as the United Nations include Afghanistan and Iran as part of South Asia in its geographical classification system,[6][7] but neither Afghanistan nor Iran is typically considered as a part of the Indian subcontinent.[8]"

• "The United Nations includes Afghanistan and Iran in South Asia,[6] as do others (?!) and there is no globally accepted definition on which countries are a part of South Asia.[7] While Afghanistan or Iran or both are sometimes included in the region called South Asia, neither Afghanistan nor Iran is typically considered as a part of the Indian subcontinent.[8]"

...is really a weasel wordish presentation of what's actually verifiably going on, in my opinion.

First of all, the United Nations is a huge organisation consisting of numerous agencies. Lets see some of the foremost ones and what they say about this;

• UNICEF; Iran is in the MENA region,[19] Afghanistan in South Asia.[20][21]

• WFP; Iran is in the Middle East, Afghanistan in Asia.[22]

• World Bank; Iran is in the MENA region,[23] Afghanistan in South Asia.[24]

• WHO; Iran is in the Eastern Mediterranean region (same even goes for Afghanistan apparantly).[25]

• UNAIDS; Iran is in the MENA region, Afghanistan in Asia-Pacific.[26]

• And lastly, the official UN cartographic map for South Asia ---> Clearly no Iran.

  

  Official United Nations cartographic map of South Asia.

So, we can pretty much safely conclude that the highlighted sentences are wrong, and that the UN absolutely doesn't hold such a stance as defined in the highlighted sentences in question. Also, in the first sentence, the first two words are "some sources". That would mean that there are other sources, right? Which ones? Lastly, I really didn't get this part; "neither Afghanistan nor Iran is typically considered as a part of the Indian subcontinent." Can you show me a single reliable source that considers Iran to be part of the Indian Subcontinent? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

References

@LouisAragon: Thanks for all the links, and a cogent explanation of your concerns. Ignore the so-called official "cartographic map". You are over-interpreting its significance (as does wikipedia's South Asia article, which needs cleanup too). Because, if you look at the West Asia cartographic map by the UN, you will see countries such as Egypt and Eritrea which are not even in Asia (forget West Asia). Other similar UN cartographic maps of world regions need equal care in its interpretation. The NPOV we are trying to achieve in this article is to state, with reliable sources, that not everyone agrees what South Asia is, what Indian subcontinent is, or that they are synonymous. On other links, yes, true, but much of that discussion should go into our South Asia article, not this article. A few sentences in this article do need a bit of wordsmith-ing for clarity. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

LouisAragon, thanks for sharing all those sources. Ms Sarah Welch, your edits, as admitted by you, are aimed at ensuring that the reader goes away with "Oh .. the usage of the term South Asia is contentious". This is not due in this article (it first even needs to be established if it is all that contentious in the first place, given all the contrary evidence), and the weasel wording attempts to somehow push this, unfortunately leaves the reader perplexed. (Leading to questions as this one from LouisAragon-"I really didn't get this part; "neither Afghanistan nor Iran is typically considered as a part of the Indian subcontinent." Can you show me a single reliable source that considers Iran to be part of the Indian Subcontinent". LouisAragon and the general reader is oblivious of your intentions to assert that "Indian Subcontinent is not equal to South Asia", and by adding such confusing statements that "neither Afghanistan nor Iran is considered part of Indian subcontinent", it leaves the reader utterly confused as to what has Iran got to do with Indian subcontinent.)

As to the term South Asia even being contentious enough, note that the United Nations geographical classification source itself carries this caveat upfront: "The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations." [27]. Couple that with all the other sources LouisAragon has shared, and its really very hard to give much weight to the UN classifications. Js82 (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Js82: the content you removed includes a lot of non-UN sources. The wordsmith-ing already addressed the few concerns of @LouisAragon. I believe one @LouisAragon concern is with the word "typical", as that implies "a few/some do consider Iran to be a part of Indian subcontinent". The intention of the edits is to give an NPOV summary of what the non-UN and UN sources are stating. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Primarily in response to Ms Sarah Welsh. Trying to keep it focused as much as possible on the article here in question (which is almost undoable as everything got mixed up), but there are few other things that I'd like to adress;

• "Ignore the so-called official "cartographic map"."

-- That's a bit odd. Why would we need to ignore this map, which seems to be showing the definition of the region as referred to most commonly, but should we then not "ignore" the UNSD source, which is clearly contradicted by the majority of the UN agencies? That would seem to be as using double standards, in my opinion. Especially, given, as I demonstrated, that no less 5 major UN agencies simply say something else than the UNSD does. We got the WFP, UNICEF, World Bank, WHO, UNAIDS, and the Cartographic centre "disagreeing/contradicting", with what the UNSD "link" says, yet the all these agencies should simply be ignored?

• "On other links, yes, true, but much of that discussion should go into our South Asia article, not this article."

-- Alright. But if you agree about that, why do we still have such statements here then, which are, still erroneous the way they are defined currently, and perhaps most importantly have nothing to do with this article, e.g.;

• "Some publications (vague) of the United Nations include Afghanistan and Iran as part of South Asia (Almost every UN agency puts Afghanistan into South Asia, whereas for Iran this is clearly not the case) in its geographical classification system for statistical reports,[6][7] (reference 7; uses a Wikipedia map in its book) but neither Afghanistan nor Iran is considered as a part of the Indian subcontinent (there is at least one definition that I know of that has considered Afghanistan to be part of a Subcontinent. So once again the equation is not correcly defined).[8]"

• "The United Nations includes Afghanistan in South Asia, and sometimes (weasel words) Iran as well, in its publications (completely contradictory).[6] However, the different geographic groupings such as South Asia by United Nations (wrong as far as I can see?; this is a quote from the UNSD website; UNICEF, World Bank, etc. don't say this) is for reporting convenience, and do not imply any formally approved definition.[note 1] (<--- idem; that reference is taken from the UNSD website. UNICEF, World Bank, do not state this) There is no globally accepted definition on which countries are a part of South Asia.[7] While Afghanistan or Iran or both are sometimes included (weasel words) in the region called South Asia, neither Afghanistan nor Iran is considered as a part of the Indian subcontinent.(idem as in the previous quoted paragraph)[8]"

There are at least five major UN agencies that contradict the UNSD, as well as its cartographic centre. Yet this article, which isn't even about the definition known as South Asia, mentions for example no less than three times "Iran", a nation which hasn't even got a single thing to do with the definition known as the Indian Subcontinent, and is even basically put on par with Afghanistan, the latter which most UN agencies consistently put in South Asia, as a matter of fact. To conclude my words; I understand what your "intentions" were, with the changes you made -- they were obviously in nothing but good faith (! :-)) but right now, the article is in my opinion 1) way too vague 2) the words "South Asia" and the Subcontinent are mixed in a way that is really weird, and most importantly, which was never intended to be like that 3) and as a result to point #2; way too much prominence is given to one UN sub-agency. This article should solely discuss the matter known as the "Indian Subcontinent", and not evade the subject, and mix up things to result in such erroneous text. Indeed, one line that mentions that "Sometimes, the term "South Asia" is used interchangeably with Indian subcontinent" should be the only thing mentioned about it here -- which, basically, as far as I know (?), is what the article used to contain before the changes. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• "The wordsmith-ing already addressed the few concerns of @LouisAragon."

-- @Ms Sarah Welsh; Excuse me if I gave the wrong impression with the "thank you" message; I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated your prompt response, not that I agreed with everything you said. All the best - LouisAragon (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon:, @Kautilya3: We can delete the striked out parts below, as a part of a major surgery that @Kautilya3 mentioned below:

The Indian subcontinent has been a term particularly common in the British Empire and its successors.[7] The region, state Mittal and Thursby, has also been labelled as "India" (in its classical and pre-modern sense), "Greater India", or as South Asia.[14][15] The BBC and some academic sources refer to the region as the "Asian Subcontinent".[16][17] Some academics refer to it as "South Asian Subcontinent".[18][19]

The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are sometimes used interchangeably.[7] According to historians Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, the Indian subcontinent has come to be known as South Asia "in more recent and neutral parlance."[20] This "neutral" notion refers to the concerns of Pakistan and Bangladesh, particularly given the recurring conflicts between India and Pakistan, wherein the dominant placement of "India" as a prefix before the subcontinent might offend some political sentiments.[14]

There is no globally accepted definition on which countries are a part of South Asia or Indian subcontinent.[10][8] The United Nations includes Afghanistan in South Asia, and sometimes Iran as well, in its publications.[9] However, the different geographic groupings such as South Asia by United Nations is for reporting convenience, and do not imply any formally approved definition.[note 1] While Afghanistan or Iran or both are sometimes included in the region called South Asia, neither Afghanistan nor Iran is considered as a part of the Indian subcontinent.[8] Similarly, Myanmar is included by some scholars in South Asia, but in Southeast Asia by others.[14] Some question whether Afghanistan should be considered a part of South Asia or the Middle East.[22][23]

Indologist Ronald B. Inden states that Indian subcontinent is also referred to as "South Asia" to distinguish the region from East Asia.[24] A booklet published by the United States Department of State in 1959 includes Afghanistan, Ceylon (since 1972 Sri Lanka), India, Nepal, and Pakistan (including East Pakistan, since 1971 Bangladesh) as part of the "Subcontinent of South Asia".[25]

If we want to keep more than "The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are sometimes used interchangeably.[7]", such as what Bose and Jalal or Inden state about South Asia and Indian subcontinent, then for NPOV we need to summarize the WP:RS on South Asia and Indian subcontinent that state something different than what Bose/Jalal/Inden state. I have no strong preference either way. Which one would you prefer and why? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we can add a section at the bottom titled Concerns or something like that, which state the objections raised by Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Nepali folks and what others say about those concerns. Please see the sources I gave in reponse to Js82 below. I would still like to keep the focus on the "Indian subcontinent" term, and not worry much about what South Asia means or doesn't mean. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I like that idea. Let us give @LouisAragon a bit of time to respond. BTW, @LouisAragon, you wrote above, "Indeed, one line that mentions (...) -- which, basically, as far as I know (?), is what the article used to contain before the changes". If you look at the facts, the version of this article before the recent changes, your impression does not reflect the reality of this article. Not even close. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon:: You asked " ...which, basically, as far as I know (?), is what the article used to contain before the changes" To clarify, before all this started, the only sentence in the Lead was "The region is also called by a number of other names including South Asia, a name that is increasingly popular in academia and the US.[3][4][5]" This captures accurately what all WP:RS so far have been understood to state (except the fact that WP:RS also states that South Asia is more common due to "neutrality", and I feel we should add that). Do you agree with this ? As to the text in the body, again, I agree that we should trim to remove unnecessary NPOV emphasis (Iran, Afghanistan typically not in Indian SC and so on), but should still retain what WP:RS directly states on the Indian SC/South Asia nomenclature. Js82 (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Js82: Compare what you propose to what the current version of article states in the lead, "Sometimes, the term "South Asia" is used interchangeably with Indian subcontinent.[7]" This is exactly what @LouisAragon has proposed above. @LouisAragon is therefore discussing above the content in the main article. The old version, before all this started, had many more mentions of the term South Asia in the main article than the term "Indian subcontinent", a symptom of an article with "tail wagging the dog" problem. The current article has fixed that problem, it still needs further improvements and revisions. Per WP:LEAD guidelines, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." We therefore cannot do what you propose. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:, @Kautilya3:, excuse me for the belated response. Yeah, I agree with the proposed removals ("deleting the striked out parts"). Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Second round

Wait...didn't we just agree to get rid of that stuff? Now it just all got moved to a new section. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you miss this comment of @Kautilya3? The move tried to trim the text a little bit and retained what maintains the NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear both, sorry to have been offline yesterday. MSW did implement what I suggested about a separate "Concerns" section. As I see it, the objections to "Indian subcontinent" are raised on two grounds:

• It is unnecessary. "South Asia" serves the same purpose, e.g., Bose & Jalal.
• It is offensive to some countries. (Pakistan and Bangladesh have been mentioned. Now, we hear that Nepalis have objections too.)

In my view, both the arguments don't hold water. Bose & Jalal, who canvass for "South Asia", themselves uses the term "subcontinent" ample times in their book. So, presumably it does serve a purpose, over and beyond "South Asia". On the second point, there is not much we can do about people taking offence to random things. But a good part of the problem is likely to be the idea that "Indian subcontinent" is named after the present day India, whereas it is named after historical India, which does indeed span all the countries of the subcontinent.

As I have said before, had India used "Hindustan" to name itself (as Jinnah vocally campaigned), this problem would not have arisen. In fact Aparna Pande states very clearly, It is important to note that Jinnah and the majority of the Pakistani policy-makers have often referred to independent India as "Hindustan," as an affirmation of the two-nation theory. In some ways there is a desire to assert that the name "India" belonged to both Hindus and Muslims and when the Muslims broke off to form Pakistan what was left was only "Hindu" India or Hindustan. But since India has decided to use "India" as its own name, the name itself has now become a Hindu one, and they must dissociate themselves from it? Are Bose & Jalal pandering to such sectarian interests?

So there is plenty of issues to be discussed in this article, without getting entangled with what South Asia means or doesn't mean. Names are important because they encapsulate identities. Owning or disowning names also implies owning or disowning identities. "South Asia" happily doesn't have any identity associated with it, which is part of its attraction. But resorting to "South Asia" is just turning a blind eye to the identity politics, which we all know to exist, but are too afraid to touch. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Afghanistan etc again

Aditya Kabir: please see the above discussion and those in the archive. Do you have new concerns? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Eurasia?

Khestwol, "southern Asia and southwestern Eurasia" doesn't make sense. If it is to the south of Asia, how does it move to the "southwest" when Europe is added? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced and violates NPOV as well. I reverted it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)