Talk:Indian subcontinent/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sources

Kautilya3: FWIW, I randomly checked some sources cited in this article that allegedly support "South Asia is interchangeable with Indian subcontinent", and am running into OR. For example, this source is cited. It is merely stating the term South Asian refers to people from Indian subcontinent: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. That does not mean or imply South Asia = Indian subcontinent. When you have time, would you please cross-check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That OR you have so triumphantly run into can very easily corrected. We could have 100 sources cited telling - X, Y, Z uses this term to mean this region, and then cite another 100 telling - A, B, C uses another term to mean this region, and then say these terms are used interchangeably. It's okay to use you brain. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please quit these "triumphantly run" style snide remarks, and your vague lecturing about "100 sources". See WP:TALK on how to productively use the talk page. The sources are clearly stating many things. We don't need to correct them. We need to summarize them in a neutral POV manner... which means summarizing all sides, not the "they are used interchangeably" side you wish to push. Once again, as I requested: please see the past discussions on all this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason of being hostile. We really need third party intervention. Thanks for the lectures. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Here go some refs

• "Today, academics use the terms South Asia and Indian subcontinent interchangeably with the emphasis, of course, on Indian Studies, which is the primary focus of most of the scholarly research and writing." (Yasmin Saikia, Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh, page ix, Duke University Press, 2011)
• "South Asia (i.e. the Indian subcontinent)..." (Peter T. Daniels, The World's Writing Systems, page 371, Oxford University Press, 1996)
• "South Asia (the Indian subcontinent)..." (Alexander Mikaberidze, Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World, page 98, ABC-CLIO, 2011)
• "South Asia (i.e. the Indian subcontinent)..." (Mary MacKinnon, Providing Diabetes Care in General Practice, page 171, Class Publishing Ltd, 2002)
• "The region of South Asia, known as the Indian subcontinent..." (Shiv R. Jhawar, Building a Noble World, page 39, Noble World Foundation, 2004)
• "South Asia' as a cover term replaces the 'Indian subcontinent', a term closely linked to the area's colonial heritage and still widely used in typological studies, but no longer an accurate reflection of the area's contemporary political demarcations." (Raymond Hickey, Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World, page 256, Cambridge University Press, 2012)
• "South Asia, an arbitrary geographical definition (it might also be termed the Indian subcontinent), is an aggregate of eight political entities." (Milton Walter Meyer, Asia: A Concise History, page 342, Rowman & Littlefield, 1997)
• "South Asia, also known as the Indian Subcontinent, comprises of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, Burma and Afghanistan." (K.R. Sharma, Accounting Education In South Asia, page 37, Concept Publishing Company, 2004)
• "I shall use the term South Asian English to refer to the variety of English used in what has traditionally been called the Indian subcontinent." (Braj B. Kachru, The Alchemy of English, page 33, University of Illinois Press, 1990)
• "These countries are all included in the term South Asia, which also includes Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Skim and Sri Lanka. Another term covering approximately the same area is the Indian subcontinent." (Rajeev Verma, Faith & Philosophy of Hinduism, page 13, Gyan Publishing House, 2009)
• "The Indian subcontinent is a term that certainly recognises the dominant position of India in both area and population. Since the partition of Indian Empire, use of this term becomes offensive to the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis." (Jona Razzaque, Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, page 3, Kluwer Law International, 2004)
• (inserted) "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’, consisting of China, Japan, and Korea." (Ronald B. Inden, Imagining India, page 51, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000)
• "To comprehend the history and linguistic base of Urdu/Hindi, one has to look at the Indian subcontinent or South Asia as a geopolitical and linguistic entity." (Abdul Jamil Khan, Urdu/Hindi: An Artificial Divide, page 13, Algora Publishing, 2006)

Some books that use the terms interchangeably

• "Pakistan came into being as a democratic homeland for the Muslims of South Asia in August 1947, when the British ended their imperial rule of the Indian subcontinent." (Devin T. Hagerty, South Asia in World Politics, page 49, Rowman & Littlefield, 2005)
• "South Asia is no different from most countries. Rafts and boats of the Indian subcontinent are mentioned by name." (Sean Mcgrail et al, Boats of South Asia, Routledge, 2003)
• "Every linguistic entity within the Indian subcontinent is entitled to be a nation-state. Culturally, linguistically, and religiously, South Asia is one of the most heterogeneous regions of the world." (Actionaid, Peace and Justice, page 104, Pearson Education India, 2010)
• "South Asian states that we are comparing here historically witnessed multiple regional kingdoms and competing centres of power. In the long history of the Indian subcontinent, there were..." (Mahendra Prasad Singh and Veena Kukreja, Federalism in South Asia, page 216, Routledge, 2014)
• "Pakistan delineates the northwestern boundary of the Indian subcontinent, separating the south Asia region from the Middle East to the west and from central Asia to the northwest." (Karl R. DeRouen, Defense and Security: A Compendium of National Armed Forces and Security Policies, page 567, ABC-CLIO)

Does this illustrate the point with ample RS refs and no OR? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir: Lets ignore sources such as Gyan Publishing you cite, because it is unreliable (plagiarism, WP:Circular, see WP:PUS). The problem with many of your quote-clips and cites above is that they ignore the context. A source may state "i.e.", but that means the authors wants to add a explanatory / clarifying note about what she or he means. Such passing comments in any source cannot be taken to mean the author is discussing and declaring that the terms Indian subcontinent and South Asia are "synonymous, interchangeable". Context is important. This is amply clear if you read beyond the "cherrypicked clip" in the sources you cite. For example, Yasmin Saikia contextually uses the term Indian subcontinent to mean India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (page x, etc). See others for their context. We shouldn't use sources with "in the passing remarks" here or other wikipedia articles, as admin Vanamonde93 rightly has remarked in the past. We should rely on more comprehesive sources that actually discuss the two terms. FWIW, we already state in this article that some sources use the term interchangeably. Perhaps, what we need to further clarify in the main article that usage sometimes depends on the national origin of the author, or the historical period. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Now you are gaming the system, dropping policies out of relevance, and making false claims. But, don't you think that blatant policy-bombing is not very conducive of a discussion? As for "Yasmin Saikia contextually uses the term Indian subcontinent to mean India, Pakistan and Bangladesh", have you not already noticed that the exact extent of the Indian subcontinent is not established, and hence keeps varying with different authors? Do you need some cites on that? What is your point, apart from "look at the other discussion"? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Isn't interesting that all these sources find the need to explain South Asia, with "Indian subcontinent" being the understood meaning? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

At least three sources - Jona Razzaque, Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, and Yasmin Saikia - indicates that South Asia is the more recent term and Subcontinent is the older term. Indian Defence Review printed an article narrating a brief history of the terms. Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal has an even better explanation. Using the older term to clarify the newer term is nothing new. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here go some counter-refs

The lead must summarize the main article per WP:LEAD, not ignore the main article and push a particular POV. Please read South Asia article and this article, to see how South Asia is defined and described. Plus review the sources such as the following:

• Hamid Alikuzai, A Concise History of Afghanistan, "South Asia (Afghanistan and the nations of the Indian subcontinent) is isolated from the rest of Asia by great mountain barriers."
• Paul Joseph, The SAGE Encyclopedia of War; "Myanmar — a land-bridge state — joins South Asia to East and Southeast Asia. To the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, another land-bridge state joins South Asia to Iran, the Middle East, and to Central Asia — Afghanistan. (...) Contemporary South Asia's link to Afghanistan is its border with only one South Asian state - Pakistan. (...)"
• Burjor Avari, Islamic Civilization in South Asia; "In the context of this book, the term South Asia refers to the three modern states of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. There are other states in South Asia, but this book deals specifically with the history of Muslims in these three states. The term Indian subcontinent has no political implication; it is simply the description of the more specific geographical zone in South Asia, covering the three states referred to."
• Vinod Anand, Perspectives on Transforming India, "Due to its geographical location Afghanistan has historical relations with Central Asia as well as Indian subcontinent in South Asia."
• Zahid Ahmed, Regionalism and Regional Security in South Asia, "For example, the South Asian Studies programme at the University of Edinburgh identifies the region as the Indian subcontinent comprising of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. This leads to another contested issue, the definition of the 'Indian subcontinent' which often includes or excludes Afghanistan and the Maldives from the list of the above-mentioned countries."
• Jacqueline Hirst et al, Religious Traditions in Modern South Asia, pp. 1-3; "South Asia is the name given to a region that includes the modern nation-states of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Maldives. (...) In the broadest sense, these contexts are configured by the region itself. Its seven independent nation-states define South Asia geographically by their position on or adjacent to the Indian subcontinent."
• Kaushik Roy, Warfare in Pre-British India, "South Asia is a recent term which has been coined in the post-World-War-II era by the US State Department officials. The bulk of the attention in this book is given to undivided India (which includes India, Pakistan and Bangladesh). (...) The traditional name for the subcontinent is India (as used by the British), which is derived from the medieval Arabic term al-Hind. (...)"
• John Peters et al, War and Escalation in South Asia, "South Asia describes the area reaching from Afghanistan across Pakistan, the Indian subcontinent, Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh down to Sri Lanka."
• Partha Ghosh, Cooperation and Conflict in South Asia, pp. 4-6, "The area of South Asia, however, is not quite so clear-cut. (...) The South Asia Institute (SAI) of the Heidelberg University in West Germany subscribes to this kind of definition. It has departments and scholars there whose work primarily relates to some aspects or the other of Southeast Asian region although the major thrust of the institute is on studies related to the Indian subcontinent, the so-called South Asia proper. A similar definition has also been used by scholars like Howard Wriggins and James Guyot. (...) After having excluded Burma and Afghanistan what essentially remains of South Asia is the Indian subcontinent, that is five countries: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, and Pakistan."

There are a zillion sources which state South Asia and India subcontinent to be a contested term, not as interchangeable. Per NPOV we can't take sides. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly why there used to be is a "weasel word" in the earlier version of the article. The two terms are "sometimes" used interchangeably. Not always. BTW, @Kautilya3:, have you noticed the Kaushik Roy quote? I was about to post it myself. It has the reference to you state department comment. A.Z. Hilali mentioned it too. :D

What is your point, @Ms Sarah Welch:? What are you arguing about? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Good question. I don't really know what it is that you are debating, even though I jumped into the middle of it. Aditya, it looks you started making changes recently. So the ONUS is on you to explain what you are trying to do. Your edit summaries don't really explain it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. At least someone is willing to listen. :D My point, as I have already mentioned above, is that the article needs to be about the term and not the region. As South Asia and Indian Subcontinent is arguably the same place, it is unnecessary to have two articles on the region. The current version is about a region. It also is probably not encyclopedic to remove every mention of an academic explanation of the difference between the two terms (i.e. Inden and Bose-Jalal). Looks suspiciously like POV pushing. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

South Asia and Indian Subcontinent are arguably not the same, and their contextual use varies by the scholar. See sources above, those in the article already and the past discussions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The context varies for both of the terms, and so does their definition. Very little if any is not overlapping, not enough to establish anything. On the other hand a lot can be established about the term, without contradictory sources. So, is that your point - these two regions are different? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir: Your write, "Very little if any is not overlapping, not enough to establish anything." That is the script in your mind, not supported by most sources. Your own sources and the numerous sources listed on this talk page clearly establish that the term is a contested one, variously defined and inconsistently described. That is what we must acknowledge. We discussed this in past at length and reached a consensus. The current article summarizes the disagreements with care, without CITEKILL. The version you tried to revise to, deleted the disagreements section, and added content that violates NPOV guideline by undue, dubious, one-sided POV along the lines of the script in your mind. We can't ignore "contradictory sources", we can't suppress "contradictory sources", because that is what NPOV requires. We summarize the disputes and sides, we don't join the dispute or take a side in wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Please, don't get fixated on whatever version I reverted back to (that was plain laziness, very regrettable). I am discussion only one version - the current one. And, who agrees to your claim that "the current article summarizes the disagreements with care"? You? Not good enough. Do you even have a point apart from "I adhere to Wikipedia" and "see the discussion above"? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir: See, plus the discussion that preceded it for example. If you take the current article as the starting point, then propose additions / revisions respecting the "contradictory sources", Kautilya3, other editors and I are likely to welcome it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That is all that is needed. That is what I proposed to do already. Good that we can finally agree. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka not part of Indian subcontinent. Subcontinent only the mainland which including India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan (and Pakistan). Sorry for argument but Sri Lanka actually used to part of subcontinent but 200 million years ago the island split off from subcontinent therefore not part IAmCool2015Malaysia (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018

106.200.169.14 (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

In/on?

Should it be "in the Indian subcontinent" or "on the Indian subcontinent"? I have seen both.--Adûnâi (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It should be "in the indian subcontinent" Kohcohf (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverting might doom the existence of the article

This version has all the information reorganized to make for coherent sections. It was reverted to this version as better, and apparently based on previous discussions. (diff)

Neither a good reason to revert. In fact createing a one line "disagreement" section while the entire article is largely about disagreements is funniest to the boot. A discussion about identification of the region can not be titled as "politics".

The biggest reason for my change is South Asia and Indian Subcontinent are the same place. And if you want two articles on the same subject then please check WP:MERGE - "Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability."

If you want them to be two articles on the region then this article will need to be merged into South Asia. The only rational way for this article to exist is to have it as a separate topic. It is a separate topic if you have an article on the difference. That difference is lies in the fact that the Subcontinent is a different "term", quite popular, historical and contested, for South Asia. And, then you can have an acceptable and separate article on the term, and not the region. The region is covered in South Asia. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir: Please see the extensive discussions in sections above, a comment for you above, and one discussion started by Kautilya3 in the archive section. There is no need to rehash the discussion we have had in the past, unless there is some new WP:RS you have to share. You can give the AfD/merge etc "doom" a try per regular process. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. The current content does seem to have somewhat of a consensus. But, the organisation of the article is still a bit interesting, to say the least. I guess, we need to use the current article as the base and improve it from there. No problem. A little extra work never killed anyone. :P

As for the lead I will still quote WP:MERGE, as this article is not about the region, it is about the alternative term. That term may be more popular, more established and everything, but it still is not a separate region. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir: Please set aside the presumptions / scripted view / personal opinions. Wikipedia must fairly summarize the published verifiable RS, per content guidelines to the best of our abilities. Look at secondary and tertiary sources. Indian subcontinent and South Asia are two topics. Their description does vary, as sources in this article explain. I believe AfD and merge proposals are likely to fail. We can't take sides, we only explain the sides as best as we can, per WP:NPOV guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I have failed to explain. I am not proposing a merger. All I am saying is since this is about a separate term and not a separate region it probably should begin by saying - this is a term for this region. Not saying - this is a region. BTW, I believe now you are getting forum-y and are failing to assume good faith and started persona attacks. I believe we can refrain from those when discussing. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we don't need to worry too much about WP:MERGE, because any one would hard put to demonstrate that the Indian subcontinent and South Asia do mean the same thing. Afghanistan is certainly an outlier for the Indian subcontinent. A more significant difference seems to be that "Indian subcontinent" is a geographical or geo-cultural term, whereas "South Asia" is geo-political term. According to our article on Encyclopedia, Generally speaking, unlike dictionary entries which focus on linguistic information about words, such as their meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title. It is not prohibited for Wikipedia to have on articles on terms (rather than places, people or whatever), provided that there is enough non-linguistic information about them that needs to be described. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I would probably never be able to put it so nicely. The two terms definitely does not mean the same thing. Though they are about the same region, the terms are different. From my information I found one to be popular, the other to be official, one to be historical, the other to be modern and so on. May be they are better defined as geo-political and geographical. In that case we probably need to establish that one is geographical, the other geo-political in the articles. And, they still would be about the same region.

And, yes, I also am betting on the fact that different "terms" for the same entity can exist, as long at least some of them are presented as a "term" with enough notability. Since, "Indian Subcontinent" has no notability problem, and "South Asia" seems to be the mother article, with enough content that is more updated than it is possible for the subcontinent (not many really publish updated statistics for the subcontinent), it is prudent that we treat South Asia as the article about the entity, and Indian Subcontinent about the term.

My proposal is quite simple - since two articles can't exist for the same concept, if the it is only a lexicological difference, then let us have that in the lead.

For the rest of the article, it looks a bit choppy and somewhat reducted. But, I hope that can easily be rectified without distorting the information content, weightage or context. I am perfectly willing to take the effort. I hope the participants in the last discussion would be there to help. You see, one person can always be wrong. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this article is really meant to be about the term rather than the land. More could be added (e.g., Historical India, Hindustan, Al-Hind, Bharatavarsha etc., which are much older terms) but we would start facing a lot of resistance from certain groups. The term is "Indian subcontinent" is popular because it is a useful substitute for all these historical terms. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir: Both are terms. Generally, most of Afghanistan has not been considered as a part of Indian subcontinent, it is an outlier. Let us avoid, "the term is often used interchangeably with South Asia", per NPOV. Like everyone, you are welcome to improve the article. Please do review the archived and other comments by Kautilya3, LouisAragon, others and I from the past (please ignore Js82). There is no point repeating the same thing all over again. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Here are the first two sentences from The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition, Columbia University Press:

Quote: "Indian subcontinent, region, S central Asia, comprising the countries of Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh and the Himalayan states of Nepal, and Bhutan. Sri Lanka, an island off the southeastern tip of the Indian peninsula, is often considered a part of the subcontinent." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, MSW. The way you are pushing the issue as settled seems to be overdone. It is far from settled. You have cited a qute that explains the meaning of the term. Yes, this is a term to denote a region, but there are other terms for the region. And, there can not be two articles about the same entity. Indian subcontinent should be a an article about the term, and not the region. Are you still failing to see the point? Kautilya seems to have no problem understanding. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstand Kautilya3, see his comments in past to get the context. He and I are both saying these are terms! I have no interest in forum-y clarification of your wisdoms / prejudices / opinions. Let us focus on and stick with RS and NPOV. We will do fine. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

South Asia is a more recent official term denoting the south-asian geopolitical region that includes Afghanistan. Indian Subcontinent is an older geopolitical, cultural term coined by the British. At that time I don't think the Afghanistan was specifically included. But these 2 terms are distinct in word and essence. One is used in present geo-politics while the other was used by older geo-politics. We should keep both articles to reflect the same. Even though a new term has arisen for Indian Subcontinent, it does not mean, the area represented by "Indian Subcontinent" has vanished or its history disappeared. SO we need not limit the Indian Subcontinent Article to past events only. Santosh L (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Sarah, perhaps you can explain why you want to avoid, "the term is often used interchangeably with South Asia"? Otherwise, I just see a lot of back and forth exchanges, without any substance being addressed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Two reasons, both driven by RS as cited in this article and the South Asia article. The term South Asia, with some dissent, typically includes Afghanistan. The term Indian subcontinent, with some dissent (relating to the Hindu Kush part), typically does not include Afghanistan. Second, if we carefully read the context of the sources, most are not stating these two terms have been or are interchangeable. Some which use the term interchangeably don't include Afghanistan in the discussion; some state South Asians are people from the Indian subcontinent and then list only Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (sometimes Maldives); and so on. We can't misrepresent the sources by ignoring the context of their discussion. To respect our NOR or NPOV guidelines, we must summarize all sides, and include the context of each source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What is this obsession with Afghanistan? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Obsession with the RS and their contexts, not Afghanistan or Maldives or whatever. Because the RS policy is a pillar of wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is an obsession with Afghanistan. But rather the fact that Afghanistan is included in one grouping but not the other points to deeper differences in the respective concepts. To me, "Indian subcontinent" is a substitute for the historical terms India/Hindustan/Al-Hind, as I mentioned already. These names have had an existence for 2000+ years in a wide range of cultures. So, the concept won't disappear any time soon just because some people make noise about it.

The term "South Asia" on the other hand gives me the image of the State Department trying to divvy up the globe in some arbitrary manner so as to allocate internal resources. It is just as meaningless as "Middle East" (which is neither in the East nor exactly in the middle). The only thing that gives me pause is the argument made by Asher & Talbot that Afghanistan is in fact part of the region historically. But the Afghans themselves are not so sure of it, as we see from the recent debate at talk:South Asia. I think the geo-cultural coherence of the "Indian subcontinent" is unassailable and Afghanistan is not really part of it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, stop lecturing. You are not being of any help. You quote WP:BRD like I was a novice, and then all the contribution you made was - "look at the other discussion". Where is your discussion in Bold, Revert, and Discuss? Preach what you practice. Name calling is not compliant to talk page guidelines.

Kautilya, are we sure the difference lies in inclusion or exclusion of Afghanistan? Because, a number of books seem to include Afghanistan in Indian subcontinent. Example: History of Middle East by Radhey Shyam Chaurasia (2005, page 331), Afghanistan: The Soviet War by Ed Girardet (2011, page 250), War and Escalation in South Asia by John E. Peters et al (2006, page 1), On the Cusp of an Era: Art in the Pre-Kuṣāṇa World by Doris Srinivasan (2007, page 55) and more.

But, the problem is not about Afghanistan (or Maldives, and MSW would have it now). It is about writing an article about an alternative term for a region, and not making it read like it is about the region. I have added a few cites a little further down. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

More exceptions than the norm, I think. Are they really explicitly saying that Afghanistan is part of the Indian subcontinent? Witness this:

On the north it is bounded by the Himalayas, on the west by inter alia parts of the Hindu-Kush, Safed Koh, Sulaiman, Brahui, Pab, Kirthar and other ranges, on the east by inter alia the Patkai, Naga, Lushai and Chin Hills, and on the south, south-east and south-west by the Indian ocean, Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea. In spite of natural barriers in internal communications, the subcontinent is an indivisible geographical entity. L. Dudley Stamp was probably not wrong when he remarked that "there is perhaps no mainland part of the world better marked off by nature as a region or a 'realm' by itself than the Indian subcontinent."[3: L. Dudley Stamp, India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma, 1957, p.185]

Mukherjee says that the terms Hindustan and India ('Indoi), which were originally applied to Sindh, were extended to the whole of the subcontinent by the time of Megasthenes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

References

I have found some:

• "The Indian subcontinent comprises Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh Sri Lanka and the Maldives." (Jean-Pierre Favennec, The Geopolitics of Energy, page 237, Editions OPHRYS, 2011)
• "The Indian Subcontinent comprises Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, bounded on the north by the great ranges of the Himalaya." (Bob Parry and Chris Perkins, World Mapping Today, page 421, Walter de Gruyter, 2000)
• "South Asia is sometimes referred to as the Indian subcontinent of the Indo-Pak Subcontinent, and comprises the modern nation states of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka." (Robin Coningham and Ruth Young, The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c.6500 BCE–200 CE, page 33, Cambridge University Press, 2015)
• "The subcontinent of South Asia consists of the nations of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives. To these we may add parts of Afghanistan, Tibet and Burma that clearly fall into the Indic civilisation sphere." (Stephen Goddard, A Guide to Information Sources in the Geographical Sciences, page 115, Rowman & Littlefield, 1983)

While, most authors would keep Afghanistan outside the Subcontinent, I can see the logic of inclusion. Afghanistan in the past was indeed a part of the Indic civilisation. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You are just deliberately cherrypicking sources to prove a point. Only one of your sources mentions Afghanistan being part of the Indian-Subcontienent but the author is not an expert on Afghanistan. I have never heard of Afg being part of the subcontinent until now. Akmal94 (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Afghanistan

@Datu Hulyo: You have reverted the article and removed Afghanistan from the list along with citations, leaving a very long edit summary - "Afghanistan is not part of the Indian subcontinent. The United States Census Bureau and Statistics Canada do not recognize Afghans as coming from the Indian subcontinent. Even the seven original members of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation debated on whether or not Afghanistan should be admitted into the organization. This is because Afghanistan is traditionally and culturally part of Central Asia. Therefore, Afghanistan as being part of South Asia is for political purposes only."

It is appreciated that you have stated your reason for reverting. But, edit summaries are not the place where you discuss content disputes. It is supposed to happen here, on the talk page.

Now for your removal of Afghanistan.

• "Afghanistan is not part of the Indian subcontinent." You are wrong. You removed at least three WP:RS that said otherwise.
• "The United States Census Bureau and Statistics Canada do not recognize Afghans as coming from the Indian subcontinent." First of all, you need to cite the sources in a verifiable way to make a claim like this (see WP:V). Also, how are you assuming that their ommission of Afghanistan means it is not a part of the Indian subcontinent? That's WP:SYNTH.
• "Even the seven original members of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation debated on whether or not Afghanistan should be admitted into the organization." But, they did include Afghanistan in the end, didn't they? So, obviously the conslusion of the debate was that Afghanistan belongs here.
• "Afghanistan as being part of South Asia is for political purposes only." That is alright. This is about inclusion, and not the purpose of the inclusion.

Afghanistan is included in the Indian subcontinent, though not always. It also is included in Central and West Asia, but that is irrelavant here. I am reverting your removal. I hope you will not engage in an WP:WAR and discuss your point here, with sources and cites and adhering to Wikipedia policies to reach a WP:CONSENSUS. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Afghanistan might be included in some definitions of South Asia, but including it in definitions for the Indian subcontinent rather smells of an nationalistic Indian pov --Xerxes931 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

May be. But that is now, and that is in India. But the term was coined and popularized by Brits, and they probably did not have an Indian nationalistic POV. The term is anyways much less used than South Asia these days, as noticed by Indian and Pakistani scholars like Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal. It remains as an anachronism like the "third world", a cold war era word that is increasingly rejected in academic and official parlance. If reliable sources include Afghanistan in Indian subcontinent then we have a responsibility to include it here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

One source you used is literally just calling Afghanistan a boundary territory between Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent, not as part of it. The other source you used is talking about the Kabul river being in the northern part of the subcontinent, in case you don’t know, that’s a river in parts of Eastern Afghanistan but also in Northwest Pakistan( See Kabul river). The only source you used which really calls Afghanistan a part of the “Indian Subcontinent” is a low quality Indian source which has a clear bias towards this topic, so non of the sources are a basis strong enough to make an edit like this. --Xerxes931 (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Here they are:

• Radhey Shyam Chaurasia, History of Middle East page 391, Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 2005, ISBN 9788126904488, Quote: "Geographically and historically Afghanistan has been part of Indian subcontinent."
• Ira M. Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies, page 698, Cambridge University Press, 2014, ISBN 9780521514309, Quote: "Historically, Afghanistan was a boundary territory, part of Central Asia and part of the Indian subcontinent."
• James R. Penn and ‎Larry Allen, Rivers of the World: A Social, Geographical, and Environmental Sourcebook, page 125, ABC-CLIO, 2001, ISBN 9781576070420, Quote" "Like rivers elsewhere in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent, the Kabul has not been used extensively for transportation."

As you can see the first two explicitly and unambiguously include Afghanistan into "Indian subcontinent", not South Asia, in which Afghanistan is a member of SAARC, which means that the Afghan government sees the country as a part of South Asia, which is an alternative term for South Asia.

Now for some more:

• Ed Girardet, Afghanistan: The Soviet War, page 250, Routledge, 2011, ISBN 9780415684804, Quote: "Since then, he has made numerous visits to the Indian subcontinent including six major trips into Afghanistan."
• Doris Srinivasan, On the Cusp of an Era: Art in the Pre-Kuṣāṇa World, page 55, BRILL, 2007, ISBN 9789004154513, Quote: "The northwestern frontiers of the Indian subcontinent in modern Pakistan and Afghanistan served as migration routes to South Asia from the Iranian plateau and the Central Asian steppes."
• Ashok K. Sinha, Glimpse of Scriptures of Religions of Indian Origin, page 151, Xlibris Corporation, 2013, ISBN 9781483663098, Quote: "Historically, Buddhism did become a major religion in the Indian subcontinent (including the current-day Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh)."
• Jean-Pierre Favennec, The geopolitics of energy, page 237, Editions TECHNIP, 2011, ISBN 9782710809708, Quote: "The Indian subcontinent comprises Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Maldives."
• Peter Duignan, The Middle East and North Africa: The Challenge to Western Security, page 77, Hoover Press, 1983, ISBN 9780817973933, Quote: "Iran looks to Afghanistan and Pakistan on the Indian subcontinent."

[Edit conflict]

• Mary Vanderkooi, Village Medical Manual: A Layman's Guide to Health Care in Developing Countries, page 119, William Carey Library, 2000, ISBN 9780878087792, Quote: "Indian Subcontinent (South Asia from Afghanistan to Burma)."
• K.R. Sharma, Accounting Education In South Asia, page 37, Concept Publishing Company, 2004, ISBN 9788180690426, Quote: "South Asia, also known as the Indian Subcontinent, comprises of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, Burma and Afghanistan."
• Y.G. Bhave, The First Prime Minister of India page 30, Northern Book Centre, 1995, ISBN 9788172110611, Quote: "Ancient India ( which included Afghanistan and Burma ) was a country of continental dimensions."
• United States. Department of State. Office of Media Services, The Subcontinent of South Asia: Afghanistan, Ceylon, India, Nepal, page 1, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962, Quote: "Several different types of government are represented on the subcontinent. Nepal and Afghanistan have variations of the monarchical system. India and Ceylon are parliamentary democracies, India being also a republic."

I hope you are disputing facts and cites to improve the encyclopedia, and not to push an Afghan nationalistic POV. I also hope that you are not WP:Gaming the system. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think you really understood what I said, re-read my previous statement, I already did read into all of the three sources you used and I explicitly told you what they are saying, the only one clearly stating Afghanistan to be part of the Indian Subcontinent is a low quality Indian source in which the author thinks that the city of Kandahar in modern day southern Afghanistan equates the ancient region of Gandhara, that's not an authentic source at all. The other source, as I already said, are talking about Afghanistan being a boundary territory between Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent and the last one is talking about the Kabul River which is in Pakistan as well. You could have figured this out by only reading my statement properly, no need for me to rewrite it. Regarding your point of Afghanistan being a member of SAARC, no that doesn't mean that Afghan government sees itself as a South Asian country: "Nevertheless, when considering the incorporation of Afghanistan in SAARC one cannot overlook the fact that the historical connection between Afghanistan and the rest of South Asia has not been consistently maintained. As a result of overarching imperative, there has been a gradual delinking of Afghanistan from the subcontinent. The German biogeographer Alexander von Humboldt is credited with conceiving a distinct geographic region, namely Central Asia. which bundled Afghanistan with other Turkic-speaking nomadic peoples into one cohesive geographic unit. [...] Afghanistan's placing within SAARC was given careful thought by its president, Hamid Karzai. During the 14th SAARC summit. President Karzai commented on his country as a link between Central Asia and South Asia" (https://books.google.nl/books?id=yTzKWI42uR4C&pg=PT58&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=afghanistan&f=false). Honestly you don't seem to have good intentions with those edits and you already admitted that your intentions might be an nationalistic Indian POV, better just leave it at that, I am not the only one who reverted you

• Didn't we decide to merge this with South Asia using Indian subcontinent to describe the plate and South Asia for the region? --RegentsPark (comment) 15:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

That is why I removed the continent infobox, which was reverted. I still think we need to do away with countries, populations and exact land areas from this article, which essentially means doing away with the continent infobox. That infobox is not applicable to geological entities at all. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, why did you replace File:Indian subcontinent.JPG with the "south asia with Afghanistan" map? My opinion is that a geologic entity cannot be defined by political entities (unless the political entities have their borders matching with the geologic entity, and Afghanistan shows that is not the case) and that map seems to be doing just that, both that one and the current map. We should get rid of references to countries in the infobox where they can't be fully explained (and leave Indian subcontinent.JPG as the only thing in it, because the other stuff doesn't have citations. Edit: keeping the countries list and adding "Afghanistan (part/disputed)" with a footnote explaining it IMO is a viable alternative. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 20:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Did I not the put the explanations inthe summary? If you are going to use a continent infobox, along with countries and populations, then you need to use a continent map, which is what I put in there. Using the infobox without using any of the parameters is silly. You can remove the infobox and just leave the geological map in the lead. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't remove infobox. I am totally opposed to such removal because infobox provides essential information. Other similar articles have infobox included as well. Santosh L (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

But what "essential information"? Countries and populations? This is the geological article, those political informations is essential to the South Asia article. Without those what other "essential information" you think is needed? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir notes that the term was originally coined by the Brits. Did the Brits include Afghanistan in their definition of Indian Subcontinent? Well, the answer is, No. In more academic discourse/literature, the term Indian Subcontinent and South Asia are not used interchangeably. The terms may be used interchangeably and employed to include Afghanistan in today's ultra-nationalist narrative in India, however, there is a world outside India, and no one uses the term 'Indian Subcontinent', not even Pakistani leaders/masses, anymore. The term is obsolete and does NOT and never have included Afghanistan. Mr. Aditya and all those advocating for inclusion of Afghanistan in the definition of subcontinent, are simply echoing the nationalistic and expansionist rhetoric and narrative of Indian leaders today. However, WP is not about politics, although clearly every other editor has an obvious political bias on certain issues. But quiet frankly, the WP shouldn't become a platform for such nonsense. If someone wants to have this debate, one can head to twitter, and start a debate. WP has rules: one needs to add verfiable and credible sources/references for edits that editors intend to make. And one last thing, although, it's none of my business to say this, but I believe before employing this whole expansionist rhetoric, Indian-origin editor on WP need to realise that India now doesn't even include Pakistan & Bangladesh, the two countries created after breaking up of India, and Afghanistan is a just a strategic ally for India in the region, nothing more. There's nothing 'sem2sem' about India and above mentioned countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.8.20 (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Some citations (repeated from above, because obviously no one noticed them, or deliberately ignored them):

• Radhey Shyam Chaurasia, History of Middle East page 391, Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 2005, ISBN 9788126904488, Quote: "Geographically and historically Afghanistan has been part of Indian subcontinent."
• Ira M. Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies, page 698, Cambridge University Press, 2014, ISBN 9780521514309, Quote: "Historically, Afghanistan was a boundary territory, part of Central Asia and part of the Indian subcontinent."
• James R. Penn and ‎Larry Allen, Rivers of the World: A Social, Geographical, and Environmental Sourcebook, page 125, ABC-CLIO, 2001, ISBN 9781576070420, Quote" "Like rivers elsewhere in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent, the Kabul has not been used extensively for transportation."
• Ed Girardet, Afghanistan: The Soviet War, page 250, Routledge, 2011, ISBN 9780415684804, Quote: "Since then, he has made numerous visits to the Indian subcontinent including six major trips into Afghanistan."
• Doris Srinivasan, On the Cusp of an Era: Art in the Pre-Kuṣāṇa World, page 55, BRILL, 2007, ISBN 9789004154513, Quote: "The northwestern frontiers of the Indian subcontinent in modern Pakistan and Afghanistan served as migration routes to South Asia from the Iranian plateau and the Central Asian steppes."
• Ashok K. Sinha, Glimpse of Scriptures of Religions of Indian Origin, page 151, Xlibris Corporation, 2013, ISBN 9781483663098, Quote: "Historically, Buddhism did become a major religion in the Indian subcontinent (including the current-day Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh)."
• Jean-Pierre Favennec, The geopolitics of energy, page 237, Editions TECHNIP, 2011, ISBN 9782710809708, Quote: "The Indian subcontinent comprises Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Maldives."
• Peter Duignan, The Middle East and North Africa: The Challenge to Western Security, page 77, Hoover Press, 1983, ISBN 9780817973933, Quote: "Iran looks to Afghanistan and Pakistan on the Indian subcontinent."
• Mary Vanderkooi, Village Medical Manual: A Layman's Guide to Health Care in Developing Countries, page 119, William Carey Library, 2000, ISBN 9780878087792, Quote: "Indian Subcontinent (South Asia from Afghanistan to Burma)."
• K.R. Sharma, Accounting Education In South Asia, page 37, Concept Publishing Company, 2004, ISBN 9788180690426, Quote: "South Asia, also known as the Indian Subcontinent, comprises of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, Burma and Afghanistan."
• Y.G. Bhave, The First Prime Minister of India page 30, Northern Book Centre, 1995, ISBN 9788172110611, Quote: "Ancient India ( which included Afghanistan and Burma ) was a country of continental dimensions."
• United States. Department of State. Office of Media Services, The Subcontinent of South Asia: Afghanistan, Ceylon, India, Nepal, page 1, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962, Quote: "Several different types of government are represented on the subcontinent. Nepal and Afghanistan have variations of the monarchical system. India and Ceylon are parliamentary democracies, India being also a republic."

Having posted that I must also say that the bigger question is do we really want to use political parameters on an article that's not about a political entity? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, I did see citations and interpreted it as "the boundary of the Indian subcontinent goes through Afghanistan and authors who have nothing better to do are trying to decide what countries are on the subcontinent" when the subcontinent really ends at the Hindu Kush, which passes through Afghanistan. After your replies, I agree that the infobox needs to go. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 12:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Danre98: Thanks. After RegentsPark commented about the need for the infobox, I tried removing it. But, it got quickly reverted by Santoshsatvik with a comment in this discussion - "Don't remove infobox. I am totally opposed to such removal because infobox provides essential information. Other similar articles have infobox included as well." I aksed Santosh about which "essential information" are we trying to provide in the infobox. But no answer yet. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:VOLUNTEER. You shouldn't be expecting a quick discussion for removing a long-standing infobox. If Southeast Asia, East Asia, South Asia and every other similar article can have infobox, then why this article should be rid of infobox? People would like to know how "South Asia" and "Indian subcontinent" are two different terms and infobox provides a quick idea about what these geographical terms are supposed to mean. Santosh L (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Santoshsatvik, If Southeast Asia, East Asia, South Asia, and every other similar article can have infobox, then why this article should be rid of infobox? Because those articles are about geopolitical areas, whereas this is limited to the Indian subcontinent, an area based on the Indian Plate. Apparently they agreed to merge this with south Asia and have this one be about the geologic area (per RegentsPark above). In addition, the current infobox has land and population unreferenced, and the countries on the subcontinent are too complex to list (because of Afghanistan), leaving only the native names and the image. I also don't understand how the infobox provides a quick idea about what these geographical terms are supposed to mean outside of the image, which will be kept. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

South Asia and Indian Subcontinent are two separate terms that have different meanings. The quotes provided by Aditya Kabir are a fringe opinion in academic circles. South Asia includes Afghanistan, but Indian Subcontinent does not. The definition of Indian Subcontinent is very clear and I, honestly, don't understand what the fuss is about. There are many academic scholars out there who have described Afghanistan as a Central Asia country, but the WP article on Central Asia doesn't list Afghanistan as the Central Asian country. This is because Afghanistan being a South Asian or the one connceting South and Central Asia is a mainstream academic view. Also, I agree that infobox shouldn't be removed and must not include Afghanistan. Honestly, I believe this is a clear example of political bias and an Indian Nationalist POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.10.50 (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Please, read before you write. The last four or more comments are about whether we should have an infobox, not Afghanistan. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 22:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, @Danre98: I read your response and also the quotes cited here by you. I only meant to emphasize the fact that Afghanistan being part of Indian subcontinent is a fringe opinion in academic circles. Being on WP requires one to stomach disagreement from other editors. Anyhow, as I stated earlier, readers should be able to know the difference between South asia and subcontinent, as these two terms are separate and have different meaning. Honestly, this issue has already been discussed and resolved on this page, but you keep bringing it up again and again. You did include Afghanistan to this page two years ago, if I am not wrong, and you were reverted. This led to a debate and the issues were resolved. You only brought it up again. Also, Hindu Kush boundary ends in Afghanistan, and reaches into eastern end of Tajikistan too, however, I have never seen any editor add Tajikistan to this article even though as you stated it yourself that this article is about geologic area, not a political entity. Therefore, this edit and whole discussion is a result of political bias than about an actual fact-based edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.10.50 (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries. RegentsPark, Danre98 and I are not trying to include Afghanistan, at least not anymore at the moment. We are reasoning against the very infobox that has a space for Afghanistan to be included. I think we have enough support for removing the infobox now. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oi! :) I do not have any bias whatsoever (at least none that impact the discussion). I know nothing and have nothing to do with India, but I am a part of Wikiproject Afghanistan, and don't really care where it is classified.

TL;DR Afghanistan cannot be listed in the countries section and it cannot not be listed in the countries section. Due to those issues, the countries section doesn't belong in the infobox

Support to the statement "A significant portion of Afghanistan is on the Indian Subcontinent" The boundary of the Indian Subcontinent (geologically speaking) is at the Hindu Kush. Hindu Kush ends by the Kabul river. <logic argumant number 1> 1. The Kabul River flows to the Indus River. 2. The Hindu Kush divides the Indus and Amu Darya watersheds. 3. Therefore, the Kabul River is part of the Indus river watershed. <logic argument number 2> 1. The Indus river is located in Pakistan. 2. Pakistan is mostly located on the Indian Subcontinent. WP:CK. 3. Therefore, the Indus river is located on the Indian Subcontinent. <logic argument number 3> 1. The Kabul River is part of the Indus River Watershed (conclusion from argument 1). 2. The Indus river is located on the Indian Subcontinent. 3. Therefore the Kabul River is located on the Indian Subcontinent. <end logic arguments> 7184974 reside in the watershed of the Kabul River. Therefore, from that and "The Kabul River is located on the Indian Subcontinent. I think it can be inferred that a significant portion of Afghanistan is on the subcontinent. Long story short, a significant portion of Afghanistan is on the subcontinent, given that the border is the Hindu Kush (my argument is above in case you want to argue with that statement). The border for the subcontinent is the Hindu Kush provided that you people did agree to make this about the geologic entity, not political (per RegentsPark above)(meaning political definitions should not be used, because using them makes an article de facto about a political entity). Because political definitions should not be used, and because using countries to define something is giving it a political definition, I don't care what the sources say about countries on the subcontinent cause they are referring to the political entity (aka South Asia) and not the geologic entity that the article is agreed to be about (they could belong later in the "geographic section", but not in the infobox because the infobox represents the entire article/topic. We should not favor one aspect of a topic over another, in this case, the geographic aspect over the geologic aspect). If Afghanistan is included in the countries list, then the western half of Afghanistan is wrongly described as being on the subcontinent. If Afghanistan is excluded, the the eastern half of Afghanistan (Kabul river and the like) is wrongly described as not being on the subcontinent. Because of that it is too complex to list Afghanistan and for practical reasons stemming from that other countries in the infobox (the question "how should the countries section be displayed?" is too hard to answer) In addition, to your objection reaches into eastern end of Tajikistan too, however, I have never seen any editor add Tajikistan to this article even though as you stated it yourself that this article is about geologic area, not a political entity., I say that Afghanistan and Tajikistan are not the same with regard to this topic. Per this atlas, about 7184974 people live in the Kabul (Indus) river watershed (and the watershed is the portion of Afghanistan on the subcontinent per argument above). That 7 mil people is out of a country of 20 mil (per that atlas again). I doubt that Tajikistan has a significant portion of land or population on the subcontinent, yet Afghanistan has a third of its population on the subcontinent including the capital, warranting notice and mention. To your objection The definition of Indian Subcontinent is very clear I say no, there is a political one and a geological one. The political one belongs at South Asia.

Because of the above, countries should not be included in the infobox. The population and land area should not be included in the infobox because they don't have a citation associated with them. Given that only the natives name section and the image is left, I think it warrants removal based on lack of info to display.

I see Aditya Kabir has posted while I was typing this, and I largely agree with them.

If this article is about the geologic entity and South Asia is meant for the political entity, (and I agree with that) shouldn't we put a hatnote saying "For the political entity, see South Asia"? --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 02:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hatnote added. Infobox removed. Waiting for someone to revert and make this discussion longer. There is no end to unthinking enthusiasm in the world. Sigh. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The Hindukush being the border doesn’t mean that it’s including all of the Hindu Kush, in areas like eastern Afghanistan and Tajikistan in it. It’s a barrier, imagine it as a wall, the furthers point of it is in Northwest Pakistan, which is where the subcontinent also starts. By your logic of including all the parts where the Hindu Kush is as the subcontinent then all mountain ranges serving as a border are used wrongly, all of western Iran would not be part of the Iranian plate by that logic because the Zagros which servers as a border to the Arabian plate goes all the way through western Iran. However the border is where the Zagros starts from the other side, roughly towards the Iraqi border near Baghdad, not the other way around, same case with the Hindukush. The Indian subcontinent/Plate ends in northwest Pakistan at the Hindukush. No part of Afghanistan is part of the Indian plate and by your own definition(Hindukush) not of the subcontinent either, regardless of what outdated or Indian sources say Xerxes931 (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Xerxes931, you are right. (nor, should I note, is it strictly a part of the Eurasian plate given a closer look, it seems to be a bit in-between, at least the area west of the Hindu Kush but east of the Spin Ghar range) The Hindu Kush connects with the Spin Ghar range, which looks to be the boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan in addition to being the boundary between the Afghan block and the Indian plate. Even the Kabul River which I referenced above seems to be the exception rather than the rule, passing through a narrow pass in the Spin Ghar range. I don't think it would necessarily hurt to have the infobox back now that there is actually a parameter to put in... sighs Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 13:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox must remain. After all it solves more problems than it creates. Santosh L (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Xerxes931 Thanks for explaining that to @Danre98:. I still believe that if anyone of you believes that Afghanistan should be be added to the list primarily because Hindu Kush range passes through parts of eastern Afghanistan then you guys should've also considered adding Tajikistan too. Not enough people living in Pamir region is a stupid argument for not including Tajikistan. Tajikistan is a smaller country both in terms of size and population (pop-9 million) in comparison to Afghanistan, hence the number of people living in and around Pamir mountains is bound to smaller than the size of population living in and around Kabul river and HINDU Kush valleys. Again as I wrote earlier, this whole debate is politically motivated and has nothing to do with facts or improving WP. Editors such as aditya kabir will he back in matter of few months to add Afghanistan to the list. I suppose it was aditya kabir, who perhaps wrote on this page or any other page relating to Afghanistan, that present day AFG is part of indic civilization. No denying that whole of present day Afghanistan INCLUDING northern and Western territories in AFG came under the sway of Buddhism but what most of these editors forget or rather choose to ignore is the fact that WHOLE of present day Afghanistan, yes including eastern parts, was an integral part of great Iranic civilizations and later Islamic civilization as well. In fact Arachosia, centered on present day southern Afghanistan, has great significance in history of zoroastrianism in the region - a region these nationalist editors falsely associate with ancient hindu city/region Gandhara, even though Gandhara region was based in present day Pakistan and inlcuded only parts of eastern AFG (Kabul valley), also aditya kabir or some other editor quoted few lines from a source on this page that states/repeats the exact same false narrative. Similarly the city of Balkh in the west was an important centre for Zoroastrianism. Later these regions became important in Islamic history of Asia as well. Why should one ignore these aspects Of history and only focus on the other?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.45.95 (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, my previous definition was not including all of the Hindu Kush, previously I determined the boundary by the watershed boundary, or the topographic elevation, creating a boundary line along the highest ridge (watershed boundary). That was not a good definition. Tajikistan would have not been included, because it either is part of the Amu Darya or Syr Darya watershed and not the required Indus river watershed. Afghanistan should be discussed to follow the sources, but should not be listed in the infobox.--Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Ideally, we should merge this into South Asia. The two terms are used interchangeably, with Indian Subcontinent used more in the past and South Asia gaining currency today. That way we don't have arguments about whether Afghanistan is included or not (it sometimes is, and other times is not according to well sourced content in South Asia). Our article clearly says that the term "Indian subcontinent" is used interchangeably with "South Asia" so, it follows, that anything sourced in that article applies equally here. Just merge the two articles, include a section "Indian subcontinent vs. South Asia", and we're done. Finally, note that a lot of the discussion above (attempting to delineate boundaries) is definitely WP:OR. Look to the sources, not at your own understanding of the world!--RegentsPark (comment) 21:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

RegentsPark, the sources said it ended at the Hindu Kush, and I needed to understand what that meant. (I obviously goofed). Merging makes sense, honestly. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Danre98: Afghanistan shouldn't even be discussed. As Xerxes931 explained, Hindu kush is a boundary separating Indian Subcontinent from Afghanistan. Afghanistan being part of Indian Subcontinent is a fringe opinion and only quoted mostly by Indian sources that aren't even credible. With all due respect, Perhaps you should keep your bias aside and remain neutral in these matters. You keep changing your description for what defines the subcontinent. Sulaiman mountains form the eastern edge of Iranian Plateau even though it's also part of the southern extension of Hindu kush in eastern Afghanistan. Xerxes931 is right. Hindu kush is a boundary separating Hindu kush from Afghanistan. And I oppose merger and also removal of infobox. Subcontinent and Southern asia are two different geographic and political terms, hence this page should exist along with infobox to inform readers.

Arbitrary break

I said it before and I'll say it again I do not have any bias whatsoever. If I do, please specify what bias I have. I care about stuff being listed in the right place in accordance with the sources. In addition, I am also a bit new at this wikipedia thing so I probably make a ton of mistakes. I got needlessly confused about the Hindu Kush because I thought the boundary went through the Hindu Kush instead of to the side of it. I also was uneducated about the underlying plates this is based upon. My definition does not change now- the subcontinent goes up to but not including the Hindu Kush area per the one source in the article. I just misunderstood what it meant (although I shouldn't have).

As for the terms being different and not needing a merger, see WP:OVERLAP. Because the South Asia and Indian Subcontinent are used interchangeably,^[1] I find there to be significant overlap. The differences could be explained in a section titled "Indian Subcontinent vs South Asia" or something similar.

Thank you to those people that are being patient with me, because I really need it! :)

p.s. can IP's sign their posts as a courtesy? --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I oppose a merge, the terms Indian subcontinent and South Asia are sometimes used interchangeably however they are still different in some way, the Indian Subcontinent is based on the Indian plate, South Asia however is technically just a political region which is getting strengthens by the fact that South Asia(SAARC) de facto “expanded” by Afghanistan joining the SAARC to serve as a link between CA and SA, but officially be part of South Asia in that regard. The Indian subcontinent however is a thing for itself and thus should also have its own article. Examples for this: “Desi” Culture or food, rather restricted in this regard to the Indian subcontinent(India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc) but not Afghanistan, even though Afghanistan can be considered South Asia. Another example, the term Pathan, a term in the whole Indian subcontinent for Pashtuns, however not a term in Afghanistan, even though Afghanistan is/can be considered South Asia.There are countless other examples but either way the article is fine the way it is and the initial intention was an Indian Nationalistic POV to just have Afghanistan included here, this is for whatever reason a very common thing among people from the Indian subcontinent to aggressively put Afghanistan under the same label as them, for whatever reason. The article is good as it is right now and the majority of the people agrees with that, no need to remove an Infobox or merge the article, an own article for the Indian subcontinent is needed . Xerxes931 (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Alternative Terms

Do we really have to list all possible alternative terms like "Asian Subcontinent", "South Asian Subcontinent",  "Indo-Pak subcontinent"? These terms lack significant importance and lack of scholarly sources. Mention of these terms violate WP:UNDUE. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

One/two word mentions may not be weightage enough to trigger an WP:UNDUE. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It is WP:UNDUE because you are throwing all the possible terms here without waiting enough for them to become common enough. You WP:CHERRYPICKED sources and tidbits then created a paragraph. Now since it is being disputed you are editing warring to restore it in violation of WP:BRD. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• I also agree that these terms should not be added until they have gained enough attention of mainstream sources. Right now, "Indian subcontinent" is only how the region is commonly known as and there are no other alternative terms. Santosh L (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@ArvindPalaskar: You made me go through WP:COMMONNAME, a policy document about article titles, and an essay about misrepresenting sources you quoted, and I sincerely couldn't find how either of the policy or the essay apply here. Could you please help me by refering to exactly which part of the policy or the essay was violated?

As for WP:UNDUE, the policy explicitly explains how minority views are to be included, and a mere mention is not a violation. Again, can we help by showing which part of the policy was violated?

@Santoshsatvik: ""Indian subcontinent" is only how the region is commonly known"... indeed. "Indian subcontinent" is the title of the article, and it is the name used across the article and across my edits. Neither of the two sentences you removed (with a not-very-polite ES: lets discuss this new edit first) were in contradiction or conflict with that statement. Can you please tell how are they in conflict?

On the other hand removing them may be not entirely in compliance with WP:BALANCE and WP:STATUSQUO. But, despite policies and all, I would rather have a consensus and not an edit war, so refraining from reinstating them without a discussion. I am sure we all will come out of this happier.

Thank you both for taking an interest in betterment of the article. Y Let me offer you two cups of tea for all the wonderful collaborations that can happen here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, I found a lot of stuff on the "wet part" of the Indian subcontinent, the part of the Indian plate that's submerged in the Indian ocean. Would that be something worth taking a look into? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Confusing undue views with minority views is not helpful at all. Minorities views to be included are those which hold significant coverage among academia and commonly in use. Undue ones are insignificant minorities those have nearly nil mentions anywhere. How many academic or mainstream or news sources you can provide for the new names introduced? I am very fond of reading ,never faced these terms and can provide countless sources to contradict it. "On the other hand removing them may be not entirely in compliance with WP:BALANCE and WP:STATUSQUO." Not at all. Undoing a recent unilateral edit with a good reason is rather a compilance of WP:STATUSQUO. As for wet part of Indian plate, we may keep that in history section. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

There were "enough" mentions, and even specific explanations, provided with citations, which you two have removed. Asking for citations after removing them may not always be the best thing to do. You not coming across something doesn't make it non-existent or ignorable.

As for the enlightening commentary on the difference between "undue views" and "minority views", can you refer to any Wikipedia policy document that support what you stated? Any such reference would be highly useful, since your entire reason for removal of cited, sourced and balanced material seems to depend on the undue-ness of the material.

Finally, I am having a little difficulty understanding "unilateral edit". Can you kindly explain what exactly do you mean by it?

Not commenting on STATUSQUO or BALANCE, because neither seem to matter in this discussion at the moment. Also waiting for Santoshsatvik to make a comment. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE already has sufficient elaborations to guide you that you can't just add any minority view unless it has significant coverage and notability. Except of cherrypicked sources from certain writers where even either entire publication or a significant section of it stressing these names for political representativeness, they don't have any visible coverage in academia or common or even a minor use in scholastic discourse anywhere. No weasel arguments would help, you would need to contradict it by verifyng general use of term. Further, a unilateral edit is one undertaken by an individual before contemplating actions with anyone else. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Only a sentence mentioning the alternative names of the term is not UNDUE, especially when the names have been used by multiple sources. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Context of use plays a huge role. These cherrypicked sources are an insignificant minority and don't hold enough weight to make these terms usable. As told by Arvind, these sources in fact were written while using emphasis on new terms as their subject for the sake of political representation of India's neighboring countries. If particular minority views are notable, you have to verify that by providing a good number of sources mentioning it as "South Asian subcontinent", "Indo Pak subcontinent" or "Asia subcontinent" while analysing subcontinent in general context. If not, then these views are not even minority views worth inclusion.

These alternative terms have to be mentioned as regularly by reliable sources otherwise it is just WP:UNDUE to add them here. Santosh L (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, much of this discussion is based on misinterpretation snd misunderstanding of various Wikipedia documents. Before the confusions go any further, allow me to quickly run you two through a refresher on the documents quoted.

• Two style documents:

1. WP:COMMONNAME: A document about article titles, and has nothing to do with the content. ✗ Fail Doesn't apply.
2. WP:WEASEL: A document about vague claims and attributions, and has nothing to do with sourced and cited information. ✗ Fail Doesn't apply.

• One behavioural document:

1. WP:BRD: A supplementary document that dictates that "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting."

That evidently is happening in accordance to the suggestion, and hence ✗ Fail Doesn't apply.

• Two content documents:

1. WP:CHERRYPICK: An essay about misrepresenting sources. As many of the cites came with clear quotes from the sources, this too ✗ Fail Doesn't apply.
2. WP:UNDUE: A guideline about "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Since that's not what we are discussing ✗ Fail Doesn't apply.

Looking for a policy to use?

This type of WP:POLSHOP can happen when someone goes into a discussion to win a WP:BATTLE by declaring "lets discuss this new edit first". Or when someone wants to establish an WP:OR like "Indian subcontinent is only how the region is commonly known as and there are no other alternative terms." Or simply when someone is lacking enough WP:COMPETENCE to uphold WP:IDONTLIKE. Not WP:LISTEN to repeated requests to refer to specific parts of quoted documents that support the argument also doesn't look nice.

Can I offer a policy or two?

Setting all the POLSHOP aside the argument seems to be about "significant coverage and notability" and supposedly not "a good number of sources mentioning it", written in many different ways and WP:REPEAT over and over again. If that is the case, then the policy you two are looking for may be WP:NOTE in general, and WP:NNC in particular. If not, then I am sure there are other policies that you can use here for better effect. Otherwise this attempted removal of content and citations that are pretty well covered by WP:OTHERNAMES doesn't have enough WP:RVREASONS to hold up.

It still is about editing in good faith.

By the way, both the sentences were already in the article (one of them in exactly the same position as the time of the BOLD revert). The other was actually two sentences, which I merged to reduced weightage. Also when it was disputed for undue weight given, I moved it down to the section on "name" (per BRD: "when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns", but, of course, I didn't understand the concerns well enough).

Thank you both. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue is people are just linking WP:UNDUE in the discussion without even properly going through the entire page of WP:NPOV. UNDUE doesn't mean you have to remove any mention of the minority views. I would rather suggest those alternative names be included in the lead sentence per MOS:BOLDSYN. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

@Kamzayeem, that is your problem if you cannot understand the underlying dispute.

@Aditya Kabir, now instead of WP:WIKILAWYERING, can you see any problems with your editing? Lets see what your sources actually say:

• This BBC source about mosquitoes does not say "Indian subcontinent is also known as Asian subcontinent".
• This source about terrorism does not say "Indian subcontinent is also known as Asian subcontinent".
• This source says "In this chapter we have tried to turn a few pages in the recent history of South Asian nations from Afghanistan to Maldives". Clearly, the author is looking for South Asia, not Indian subcontinent which does not include Afghanistan.
• This source says "Except some confidence - building measures which can be easily implemented in the Indo - Pak subcontinent". Where does it claim that Indian subcontinent is also referred to as "Indo - Pak subcontinent?

What you are currently doing is indeed WP:OR and adding what is not even supported by the source. You cannot summarise the references in your own words per WP:OR.

Can you find multiple sources for each of these terms which say "Indian subcontinent covering regions from Pakistan to Maldives are also known as xxxxxxxx (an alternative term)"? ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Why exactly do you need a source to say "Indian subcontinent covering regions from Pakistan to Maldives are also known as xxxxxxxx (an alternative term)"? Which part of Wikipedia or common sense requires RS to repeat your exact phrasing (especially when there is absolutely no consensus on the which countries are part of the Indian subcontinent)? Please, understand that no one is writing a book on alternative names of Indian Subcontinent, or trying to appease editors who doesn't like it. As far as Wikipedia policies go (which may or may not be policies that you uphold), them "using the name" to denote/identify the region is good enough.

It's you who went out to shop for policies and ended up with the wrong policy, and now you bring out one more (WP:LAWYER). Stop for a while, to look into the mirror, please. Maybe we should refer to WP:STONEWALL here, as it seems that we are not discussing what would make WP a better encyclopedia, but what would make you happy.

And, please, check WP:OTHERNAMES. None of your requirements are required by Wikipedia policies. (Also read WP:OR before you quote it, and understand that it doesn't apply to talk page discussions) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way I just noticed that you wrote "Clearly, the author is looking for South Asia, not Indian subcontinent which does not include Afghanistan."... indeed, the author was clearly "looking for South Asia" (whatever that means) when he wrote on page 17, "The South Asian Subcontinent is also desccribed as the Indian Subcontinent." I also couldn't help noticing that while you were quite gung-ho in declaring the first two cites as "on mosquitoes" and "on terrorism" (which actually is not a problem, as long they use the alternative terms), you surely failed to mention that the third source is called Geography of the South Asian Subcontinent. Maybe it's just a coincidence. Or maybe you were examplifying WP:CHERRY for my understanding. Either way, misquoting the sources is not a good way to win arguments, or demonstrate good faith. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You need to read WP:SYNTH which say "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." You are exactly doing this.

I am not misquoting any sources but you are surely misrepresenting sources by claiming what isn't even supported by them. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" - where did that happen?
• "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source" - where did that happen?

Please note, to make it easier to understand what these lines mean WP:SYNTH has some explanation and examples. You may try reading those before replying.

As for misquoting sources, I will repeat what I already posted: By the way I just noticed that you wrote "Clearly, the author is looking for South Asia, not Indian subcontinent which does not include Afghanistan."... indeed, the author was clearly "looking for South Asia" (whatever that means) when he wrote on page 17, "The South Asian Subcontinent is also desccribed as the Indian Subcontinent." I also couldn't help noticing that while you were quite gung-ho in declaring the first two cites as "on mosquitoes" and "on terrorism" (which actually is not a problem, as long they use the alternative terms), you surely failed to mention that the third source is called Geography of the South Asian Subcontinent.

Thanks again.(BTW, this looks like a case for and RfC or DRN. That's not very congenial, is it? I really hoped to have a constructive discussion here.) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes there is only one source which is actually describing the connection, but even that one is looking for the term "South Asia", not "Indian subcontinent" I agree that it seems we are being repetitive but really don't think RfC or DRN can help. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"Yes there is only one source which is actually describing the connection" - did you misquote that source or not? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has moved to the RfC right below. Please make any further comments there. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

South Asia

South Asia and the Indian Subcontinent are supposed to contain the same countries, but this article does not mention Afghanistan like the article on South Asia. Please include the name of Afghanistan in this article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2818:1B45:0:0:0:1 (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that says Afghanistan is on the Indian subcontinent? At least geologically, I don't think that's the case, and I see no reason why the definitions of "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" should coincide. Huon (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

One good reason could be that "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are two terms that are used interchangeably. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Most sources rather suggest inclusion of Afghanistan being difference between Indian subcontinent & South Asia, countries lying on Indo Australian plate. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"Most sources"!!! Check again. After going through hundreds of books and journals I have found only two that says so. No wonder you are using "cherrypicking" as a core argument. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)