Talk:South Asia/Archive 4

Iran

A new user:SorenShadow is trying to make a point about Iran only being included into South Asia by the UN subregion mapping. To a certain extent I agree with them on that, but we need to be careful about this. For example an IP made an edit [1] that tries to single out Rutgers for not including Iran, but there is no reason to single out Rutgers when pretty much none of the other South Asian Studies programs referenced include Iran in South Asia. I tried to make an edit clarifying this scenario, but SorenShadow reverted it saying it is not clear and "all countries have their name state in definition except Iran. your sentence is vague about Iran" [2]. I have consequently reedited to try to make it clearer.

Does anyone have a voice on this? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

United Nations Population Information Network (POPIN) includes Iran into South Asia. If someone has an issue with that, I'd suggest the UN general assembly to sort it out, not Wikipedia. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Iran should be included somtimes cus it has ties 71.105.87.54 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

hi i am comenting on your post iran is west asia and Central Eurasia not south asian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.50.144 (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism regarding removing Tibet.

User:Toutvientapoint removed TAR from the list of countries/regions sometimes added, if anyone else notices this behavior again can you please revert it. It is an established and cited fact that Tibet is sometimes included in South Asia.

Thanks, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tibet is NOT part of South Asia. Please stop POV pushing ! Toutvientapoint (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

At least one citation says so. --Ragib (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We have cited SEVERAL universities that include Tibet in South Asia. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

“ The Centers for South Asian Studies at both University of Michigan and University of Virginia list Tibet along with seven members of SAARC as a South Asian country, leaving the Maldives out. The South Asian Studies Program of Rutgers University and the University of California, Berkeley Center for South Asia Studies do the same without leaving out the Maldives, while the South Asian Studies Program of Brandeis University defines the region as comprising "India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and in certain contexts Afghanistan, Burma, Maldives and Tibet". The similar program of Columbia University also includes Tibet, but leaves out both Afghanistan and the Maldives. It is important to note that none of these programs referred include Iran in their definition of South Asia. ”

To be blunt, Wikipedia does not care about your opinion about Tibet, it cares about academic authorities and government agencies opinions of Tibet; the bottom line is that many South Asian studies programs (authorities of South Asia) define Tibet to be part of South Asia, so we dutifully mention that Tibet is sometimes included in South Asia Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Toutvientapoint, you yourself are POV pushing. What constitutes the region South Asia differs from source to source or person to person. Your opinion that Tibet is not part of South Asia is just ONE definition. There are many out there. To make up for the different definitions out there, Tibet is put on the "Countries and territories from extended definitions" because not everyone believes that Tibet is part of South Asia. There is no one definition for any region and is open to interpretation. This is why we leave countries like Tibet and Iran on here. This way, we're not favoring one point of view. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 20:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah but Tibet is not a country. So you must add China in South Asia ! Toutvientapoint (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither is British Indian Ocean Territory and you don't seem to be complaining about that. By that logic, we would have to put the UK in then, but we don't. The country itself isn't part of it, we're just referring to the Tibet and that's it. We never also referred Tibet as a country and the section it's under includes territories and countries. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 12:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to accept that India is referred to as "South Asia", which is a crap idea, and Europe is supposedly a continent. It's all bupkiss, since India is on its own tectonic plate, which Saudi Arabia is too, while Europe is actually nothing but an Asian peninsula. Europe's not even a subcontinent! I call "continental idiocy" and prejudice on the idiot geographers of the world and the substandard champions of the politically correct who buy into the nonsense of prejudicial loser geographers who totally allow bias, xenophobia and peninsular (ha!) pride to infect their supposed academic integrity. Fooey to all you people who buy into such nonsense as "South Asia" and the supposed continent-hood of Europe. --68.173.110.157 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the GDP and economy in the article is India's. The others (including Iran) put together economically are still insignificant. It is we Indians that need to be scandalised that we are included in the company of these losers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.176.221 (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

South Asia

Neither Tibet (or whatever incarnation of that geography) nor China nor any southeast asian country is part of south asia as it is pure absurdity. South Asia is India, Sri lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran. This is due to historic, cultural, and genetic ties. Those that have a problem with that need to stop trying to fit square pegs into round circles and get on with their lives.

Why exactly is Tibet an absurdity and Iran is not. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point i suppsoe you can include Tibet. Technically there is no offical defneiton, and even if there is, its subjective. If it was up to me I would love Tibet to be part of India. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the Tibet issue, since when did Iran and even Afghanistan have strong "historic, cultural and genetic" ties to the majority of South Asia lol? I see little to no connection between Iran and Sri Lanka or Iran and Nepal or Iran and Bangladesh or Iran and the majority of India other than the northwest. On the other hand, most Southeast Asian countries have stronger historical and cultural ties with South Asia so that part is hardly "pure absurdity." Not sure where you got that from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.238.160.232 (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia does not care about your personal opinions on the matter. All the definitions of South Asia posted on this article are cited. We have provided various definitions of South Asia that have been created by various geopolitical and academic entities. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Merger Proposal - Indian Subcontinent and South Asia

Quick and general - the Indian Subcontinent is South Asia. Other words for Afghanistan, South China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and maybe Thailand is the Indian Subcontinent and it is what is usually used to define that area just like for Arabia and Mesopotamian Regions the term Middle East is used. So I propose that we merge the two articles into one article called the Indian Subcontinent. --Schmeater (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We have had this discussion many times before. The "subcontinent" is different from the various definitions of south asia. Please refer to the older discussions in the archives (e.g. this). By the way, in NO WAY is South China or Thailand considered to be part of the "Indian Subcontinent". So, I definitely oppose this. The other way around (i.e. merging Indian Subcontinent into this article) is something we might consider (given that IS is a subset of the various definitions of SA). --Ragib (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't sure about South China or Thailand.

The fate of the Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir

The article text reads The Raj also encompassed the 562 protected princely states that were not directly ruled by the Raj,[7] some of which joined the Union of India (including Hyderabad State, Kingdom of Mysore, Baroda, Gwalior and a part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir), while some joined the Dominion of Pakistan (including Bahawalpur, Kalat, Khayrpur, Swat and parts of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir ).[8][9] Sikkim joined India in 1975.[10] One part of Jammu and Kashmir became a part of China. It is misleading. The Maharaja of Kashmir ceeded to the Union of India, after Pakistani aggression resulted in Pakistani occupation of the western and northern parts of his kingdom. A part of this territory was ceeded to China, unilaterally. Additionally in 1962 China invaded and won Askai Chin, which was a part of the erstwhile Kingdom of Kashmir and then a part of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

British connection

India is one of the world's oldest civilisations, a history of many thousands of years. It is inaccurate to define such a region by a small period of British rule, 190 years (1757 Plassey) 129 years (Pune 1818), 98 years (Gujrat 1949),neither Afghanistan nor Nepal were under British occupation. Text reads Along with a number of core countries, South Asia differs in inclusion by different clubbing of countries, though essentially it mostly encompasses countries that were part of the former British Indian Empire, including the current territories of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh at the core, but also including Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Burma (officially Myanmar) and Sikkim (now a state of India). The Aden Colony, British Somaliland and Singapore, though administered at various times under the Raj have not been proposed as any part of South Asia. The British connection is over stated. I remember reading a post from a Pakistani, who wrote that what Pakistan lost in its creation was the brand India, according to him, (which makes perfect sense to me) the parts which are now in Pakistan are what were historically India or Hindustan as against other parts such as Dakshin aka Dakhan aka Deccan, and that India more a Pakistani legacy than it is Indian (as in Union of India), he wrote that most of India's borders were drawn by Muslim/ Mughal conquest (which I am not sure), then the Marathas and the Sikhs won territory, the Muslims lost sovereignty over India, then the British came, and with partition the Muslims were left with the crumbs of their Empire - 52 districts, loosing even the name of their Empire. A suggestion is that this article could convey that the limits of South Asia in the context of this article is defined by membership in the SAARC. Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka. University departments should not be used as evidence, they could be formed for reasons of convenience, a Senior Professor could be an expert on India and Tibet, he won't shuffle between two departments, so they could club Tibet and India together, (a hypothetical example not for putting Tibet here or there.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point ... the reason many definitions of South Asia are provided here is precisely because different organizations use different definitions. SAARC membership is not the sole criteria for defining South Asia. Your long comment about the Indian civilization is quite tangential to defining South Asia. --Ragib (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It is more important what a person or a country considers itself to be than where others place it. Membership of SAARC makes fine sense as a definition for that reason, and should be given prime place. A hypothetical question, if a large library, say the Library of Congress, puts country x in the South Asian region, would that be considered as a criteria? The long discussion about Indian civilisation looks long because there are two quotes in it. I am not claiming that SAARC should be the sole criteria, I am suggesting that the British connection is unnecessarily overemphasised. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not what the world "should be", rather what the world "is". Unless the various organizations/universities/UN starts using SAARC, we cannot declare it as the main criteria for defining South Asia. You might want to look at the talk page archives, where a long discussion on the definition of South Asia took place. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand wp:V, wp:OR, wp:SYNTHESIS, wp:UNDUE, wp:FRINGE. All I is say is taking them all together, isn't self identification more important than where others put you? In the meanwhile I will check the archives. You are not replying to the emphasis on the British connection? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Again here[3] we have 9 sources, one calls it southern Asia two and three are dead wood, unreachable for me, four informs that its scope is the regions of South and South East Asia, five leads nowhere, six concurs with SAARC, seven mentions that POPIN was reconfigured into sub-regions, [eight] is dead wood too, and nine Aziz writes about Pakistan as a link between South and Central Asia, which means it is on the fence, according to him, in the same link, Manisha Tikekar writes "Colonial South Asia", and sticks to the SAARC definition. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not read everything in this discussion, and I likely won't be writing on this discussion again for another week (I've got finals to deal with)

“ University departments should not be used as evidence, they could be formed for reasons of convenience, a Senior Professor could be an expert on India and Tibet, he won't shuffle between two departments, so they could club Tibet and India together, (a hypothetical example not for putting Tibet here or there.) ”

This is OR. You need to provide an academic source that indicates this. The department definitions we are using are not based on individual professors. We are basing it one what the department says it defines as South Asia. Here is an example. The Berkeley citation on the page includes Afghanistan as South Asia[4], but none of the professors in the the South and Southeast Asian Studies department has anything to do with Afghanistan [5]. (This same thing is also true for Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and Bhutan)

“ All I is say is taking them all together, isn't self identification more important than where others put you? ”

Not for Wikipedia. The opinion of authorities (academic, governmental, etc...) matter. Also many of the professors in these South Asian in origin

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC) (comment modified at 04:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

Retitling Definition by South Asian Studies programs

An ip user has decided they want to retitle this section to "Definition by tertiary studies programs". There is not support or accuracy for using this title. I thought this would be worthy to mention on the talk page. Does anyone support this edit? (Also, please note all the references cited in this section described as South Asian studies programs.) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The intent of this change was to better/neutrally fit the subtitle with the section content, since all of the South Asian studies and departments noted are with universities, or post-secondary (tertiary) institutions. Indology is, after all, the academic study of cultures and such of India and vicinity. The fact that these studies are also referred to as Indic or Indian studies also justifies the change, or a similar one ('Definitions by academic study programs') You also labelled it a vandal effort, ignorantly, without probing and reverting blindly. 76.67.18.192 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

All the program cited though are specifically South Asian Studies programs, thus saying "South Asian Studies programs" is more correct. The purpose of the segment is to depict multiple definitions of South Asia. None of the cited sources are referring themselves as Indian Studies, they all call themselves South Asian Studies. Removing that specificity is not beneficial. The "see also" only says Indology because South Asian Studies redirects there. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerning this edit (Indian Subcontinent)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Asia&action=historysubmit&diff=425245800&oldid=425222582

Should the Indian Subcontinent comments be removed or should they remain? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course the assertion should be removed, or in the least refactored: the statement that "Due to similar scope, 'South Asia' is also referred to as the 'Indian subcontinent'" is rather unequivocal, bold, and inaccurate, particularly given the McLeod citation (used to buttress this) that indicates that there is equivalency of three terms -- South Asia, Indian subcontinent, and India -- in the book alone ("it") for largely historical contexts. And, just prior to this assertion, McLeod indicates the subcontinent "may cover the same seven countries [India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and Maldives]" or exclude the last two. And, with Iran included, there is no equivalency in terms. In addition, its prior inclusion and bolding was bad form, given the mention/linking of the term earlier in the lead. Nonetheless, this point is adequately and equitably dealt with in the 'Indian subcontinent' subsection of the article (emphasis added): "Due to similar scope, the terms "South Asia" and "Indian subcontinent" are used by some academics interchangeably." 76.67.18.192 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey random IP shut the hell up and make an account. Until you do, I don't think anybody here cares of your opnion. The Subcontinent is actually East Iran to the most Eastern extents of India. See Greater India. The Subcontinent is part of South Asia but does not cover the same extent. The terms should remain since the subcontinents reaches touch all of South Asia yet they do not cover all of South Asia. Plus, there is no real point in renaming a section of the article especially since it covers the same points and has the same definition. --Schmeater (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, despite your registration, I don't think anyone here cares for your opinion. So, why don't you STFU? In any event, your blathering demonstrates that the point of contention should not be included in the lead as is, since the terms are not equal. That's like saying "Due to similar scope, the Arabian Peninsula is also referred to as Saudi Arabia." It also disagrees with assertions in the lower section, as pointed out. 76.67.18.192 (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey... Just because one person violates WP:CIVIL does not give you license to do the same Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Granted - I could've taken the higher road, but tit for tat is not inappropriate.

Actually no it is not, there is no exception in Wikipedia policies that says if someone attacks you that you are allowed to attack back. If either of you continue these violations, I will have no problem referring both of you to an admin. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can sit back and take it, but I choose not to. But, perhaps I will ignore such bluster hereafter. Now, back to the matter at hand... 76.67.18.192 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

76.67.18.192 (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Schmeater, please abide by WP:CIVIL. While I agree registering an account is a good idea for anyone who wants to become a serious editor, this is not appropriate. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, with the civility dispute out of the way, I hope my two cents would be helpful. Since MacLeod was not acceptable enough as a source, I have put a few more. If that falls short of expectation again, please let me know. There indeed is a custom here that discourages over-citation. But, sometimes that might become inevitable, especially when minor details start prevailing over the general picture. WP:BRAIN is a wonderful essay to understand the situation, I'd say. No attack indented. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have moved these references down to the appropriate spot, per above. Listing them ad nauseum is making an improper point that the article already notes and places undue weight on it; it seems that overcitation misses the point overall. I don't challenge the McLeod reference as such: I challenge the interpretation assigned to it etc. by said editors and the undue interpretation that South Asia and the Indian subcontinent are unequivocally the same all the time, which the prior assertion plainly made inequitably. The 'brain' essay is just that. 76.67.18.192 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Are they same or not? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read any of the above? I have reverted your last wholesale disruptive revert -- you will have to do much better than accuse of wikifogging (another 'essay'). 76.67.18.192 (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, advice me. What better can I do than your constant personal attacks against any editors in your way? In fact you can do better by telling us what makes you think that South Asia and Indian Subcontinent doesn't generally refer to the same region? What would convince you to accept that? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What personal attacks? Were we not over the hump of incivility? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Now, regarding the terms, I iterate: please read above: in my initial response to thegreyanomaly, this is already dealt with more equitably in the 'Indian subcontinent' subsection (where the excessive/POINT references were moved to). 76.67.18.192 (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the kitchen suits me fine. Thank you. And, if you can't understand what's a personal attack, at least go pick up a dictionary. And, before you that, may be you'd also like to explain why you don't want the lead to say that South Asia and Indian Subcontinent are in effect different names of the same region. Is that possible for you? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And, unfortunately, calling two perfectly well-intentioned and long standing editors "disruptive" because you don't agree to them is PESONAL ATTACK indeed. I guess you need to read up the behavioral guidelines a bit now. Cool down, dear. It's the Wikipedia. Not a battleground. No one is your enemy here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You obviously have difficulties with comprehension. You haven't really addressed the points above. So, I see little reason to reiterate to you why that particular sentence needn't be in the lead. Calling someone 'disruptive' is far no more a personal attack (and the fitting shoe should be worn) than referring someone to a 'brain' essay and insinuating wikifogging is taking place, among other things. I am not your dear, and while not your enemy as such, will hereafter glaze over your comments. Also, be advised that you have reverted the article more than thrice in 24 hours -- and therefore reportable for edit warring. Nonetheless, you may want to heed some of your best advice for yourself: I recommend you return to your personal page and press the emergency idiot shut-off button. In the meantime, I await reasoned responses from other editors to points above. 76.67.18.192 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, gurudeva. I didn't. You did. Learn to count, and learn to pick words right, before you learn to wield a sword. What POV are you pushing here? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay then... I can't help but feel that was all my fault. Just make an account Random IP I do not think Kabir really cares what you say: your an IP. Simple as that. Now I know that South Asia is often referred to as the Subcontinent. When you look at the subcontinent historically, all it really was: was the amount of land garnered by Indian Kingdoms. South Asia is a more geographic approach. So then why should the comments stay, simple: to show the stupidity of people. How does that help in any way. To prove people wrong about the Subcontinent and its reaches. --Schmeater (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not your fault at all. It has more to do with stubborn refusal to let any mention of Indian Subcontinent in the lead. It started with a claim that the Macleod cite wasn't enough. When more cites were provided it was claimed that it was a WP:POINT. And, then any attempt at restoring it became disruptive edit. And, finally a threat of 3R. Looking at the shifting stances and generous use of personal attacks (while claiming that calling someone "dear" is as bad an attack as calling someone a disruptive POV pusher), there is ample reason to believe there is a very strong personal and non-encyclopedic POV involved here. That's one person against three, and that person not equipped with much valid argument. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Civility upfront would have set a different tone, S. But, the editor who promulgated this edit war has a long history of conflating the two terms, as pointed out in my 3RR report ... in which (filed after that editor submitted one regarding my actions, and then cries foul) the offending editor simply got off on a technicality. I will not directly engage this editor, given their skewed and verbose perception of the issue. But, to iterate: the term 'Indian subcontinent' is already noted in the lead, the contestable sentence misrepresented the McLeod reference and is subjective (failing WP:V), furthering the offending editor's stance, and the balanced explanation in the 'Indian subcontinent' section of the article (noting that 'some' academics interchange the two) is more than satisfactory. As for 3 vs. 1, and that is debatable, this isn't a majoritarian exercise ... and the offending editor has only demonstrated a strong, lingering bias about the topic without substantial discussion and no consensus. If that sentence is inserted again without consensus, it will be removed. 76.67.18.192 (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god create an account! Now the Indian Subcontinent is a historic term that is used often inaccurately used to mention South Asia, this is why it should stay. It appears that the only way to fix this is by creating either a whole new page in general or merging the two articles. What I mean is this, create a page that focusses on the misconceptions of South Asia, that way reference of the subcontinent would be at its least, or merge the two articles and have the misconceptiona article simply be a section within this article and it explains the Subcontinent and its differences from South Asia. This is the first time ever that an IP has caused this much of a ruccus. Or just leave the Subcontinent comments since they are relevent to South Asia, they are encyclopedia quality and Kabir and I have a better understanding of Wikipedia than you do, we are users, you see what we say is more relevent not because we are users but because we have a prominent history of making the right edits on wikipedia. You see, the best resolution for this topic is to just leave the Subcontinent Comments alone. They are Wikipedia Quality, demonstrate what Wikipedia should and simply merging the articles would cause a whole lot of arguements, revisions and edits to make the article Wikipedia quality, but it could be done. Creating a new article, it would have to go through a whole lot of edits, sources and a lot but it could be done. So tell me, what do you think is better for wikipedia IP: 76.67.18.192--Schmeater (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Creating an account regarding this is my prerogative, not yours, and I could care less if you deprecate based on that premise. Now, the contestable sentence lacks quality and neutrality, since it conflicts with points in the lower section and the McLeod reference, despite editorial assertion, gave more or less precise but differing definitions for both 'South Asia' and 'Indian subcontinent'. The fact that AK added references ad nauseum to support reeks of evident POV pushing.(Note: I have no issue with the framing of the issue as is in that section.) It's also a matter of style, since 'Indian subcontinent' is already noted earlier in the lead (1st paragraph), and that instance should be bolded. A POINT made so blatantly upfront, even when the reference doesn't clearly support it, does not belong as is. And, no, my experience with both you and AK have demonstrated that neither of you can make any more the right or wrong edits than anyone else, even more concerning given your 'history' and AK's point-of-view pushing for many months (and botched merge/redirect at 'Indian subcontinent'). So, yes, the best resolution is for you both to leave that content alone, since no consensus supports retaining it, and you have failed to persuade. Now, let's await comments from others to validate that or not. 76.68.83.117 (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My History, what the Hell does that mean? Just because I've created pages on pop-art and wildlife does not mean I cannot specialize somewhere else. Plus caring less means that you technically care about that prerogative and you could care less but your caring right now so your not caring less. It means your caring. Plus, the subcontinent comments belong one way or another. I'm sure that maybe Kabir could find some since Kabir seems about the topic more than me (no offense). Sorry IP 76.68.83.117 if I offended you. --Schmeater (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have commented enough already about nothing -- this is not a soap box. The points are already included in the article, elsewhere. So, comments from others are warranted. Based on commentary to date, nothing has changed. 83.244.254.188 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandals removing Iran

There currently is one editor User:Vargavandnick who has been removing all mentions of Iran from the page. Those types of edits constitute vandalism. The definitions of South Asia that this article depicts are all cited and valid viewpoints, none of them should be removed from the page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a whole paragraph about West Asia and South Asia, that prove my point I had more that 8 references from different reliable sites that mention Iran as part of West Asia not South Asia. Somebody removed the whole paragraph with the sources. I can provide proof for this.--Vargavandnick (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Look the UN says Iran is part of South Asia, and we are citing that. We have to list Iran as being sometimes included in South Asia. This article depicts MULTIPLE definitions of South Asia. If you revert this one more time, I will not hesitate to report you to multiple admins. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that say Iran is in South Asia besides the UN geoscheme, whose article says "According to the United Nations, 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." It is misleading to say that Iran, then, is "also included by the UN". The common definition of South Asia outside Wikipedia definitely does not include Iran, so it should be deemphasized on the maps in this page. Quigley (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the UN labeling includes Iran is indisputable; see [6]. If you don't want that fact to be prominent in the article, then we should move the UN labeling out of its very prominent position. That's a totally valid stance. But you seem to be saying we should leave the UN labeling where it is, but remove Iran from that grouping; that doesn't make sense to me, and it seems like original research to me. The source, which is a UN web page, explicitly lists Iran; so if our article is going to cite that source, it has to accurately describe what the source says. --Elysdir (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the orthographic map either, we can revert to the old atlas scan we used to use, but that does not include Iran at all. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Quigley (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I can provide at least 10 source and by that I mean governmental organization, university documents, NGOs, Sport organization and many others to back my opinion. Iran consider as west Asian or south western Asian country. My document come from Canadian census, Yale University, CIA, Library of congress, FAO (the agricultural sector of UN). I can give you the links you can be the judge.--Vargavandnick (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to apply some standards to classifying countries here. If a country like Iran, or a region like Tibet, is overwhelmingly not considered part of South Asia in normal contexts, then we should not present the fringe POV as majority POV. The UN geoscheme, it has already been pointed out, was misused, and if we took a region's inclusion in a South Asian Studies program as evidence of an "extended definition", then we would be including Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, the Philippines and Hong Kong as part of South Asia, per the University of Cambridge's Centre of South Asian Studies. We should limit ourselves to the consensus definition: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, and sometimes Afghanistan; it would be improper synthesis to do any more. Quigley (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. The UN quotation has been misused here. I have read the UN article about this issue and says it is a mere sub division not base on any political facts, and currently is under revising time and asked for any help to make the information content more accurate.Vargavandnick (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tibet

Quigley, your second edit is not acceptable at all. There have been extensive discussions about Tibet and Afghanistan in the past, and there is clear consensus to keep them in this article. There are several South Asia Studies programs that define Tibet and Afghanistan as part of South Asia. It is not a fringe view, maybe a minority view, but definitely not fringe. If you want to restart the discussion over Tibet be my guest, but you cannot just remove content like that. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the claim supposedly supported by the reference is that "Culturally, though not politically, [[Tibet]] has been identified as a part of South Asia." But the reference just talks about Tibetan-language literature, especially as it is used in SAARC member states like India and Bhutan. It explicitly qualifies discussion of Tibet as "outside of the realm we would ordinarily consider South Asia". The claim is definitely a misrepresentation of the reference.

I have read through the talk page archives about the inclusion of Tibet in general, and I have seen nothing close to a "clear consensus" to keep it or any of the other disputed entries in this article. Instead, I have seen multiple editors try and fail to bring some semblance of reality to this page, only to be tarred as "vandals" and driven out by Thegreyanomaly. The most outside sources will say is that Tibet has some cultural links to India that are of interest to some Indology programs, yet from that you have asserted that Tibet is "part of South Asia" and have grafted it onto your very own maps here, implying that there is some solid geographical or geopolitical basis for Tibet's inclusion. I can only wonder what could motivate someone to argue so vigorously against the sources for the inclusion of the area at the height of the Himalayas into the region defined as being at the bottom of them! Quigley (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Per that reference, that is a good point, I reverted my edit

Calling them Indology programs is actually unfair as none of them refer to themselves as Indology programs. If you actually look at the references, most of them say that these South Asian Studies Departments include Tibet in their definitions of South Asia. South Asia Studies departments are authorities and their views must be depicted. They aren't saying "we study South Asia and Tibet", they are saying "We study South Asia, which includes..., Tibet,...". Most of the cited departments are not saying Tibet is associated with India, they are saying Tibet IS part of South Asia. For example, the Berkeley reference cites what UC Berkeley Center for South Asia Studies says is South Asia (South Asia, a region comprised of the nations of India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Tibet and the Maldives). Random IPs generally from Hong Kong have tried to ignore these sources and remove Tibet from the page because they don't like what these academics are saying. Trying to remove cited content just because you don't like it is vandalism.

• Columbia [7] says the "Program in South Asian Studies centers on the culturally diverse region composed of India, Pakistan, Nepal, Tibet, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka" indicate they define Tibet as part of South Asia
• Rutgers [[8]] says "Faculty members associated with SASP have chosen to define the term 'South Asia' broadly, to include the nations of Bhutan, Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Tibet, as well as the bordering nations of Afghanistan and Myanmar."
• Michigan [9] bluntly refers to Tibet as part of South Asia "Our division focuses on the following South Asia countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Tibet"
• Virginia [10] does not try to make any claims that they view Tibet as outside of South Asia.
• Brandeis [11] does make a note about Tibet being questionable "South Asia, one of the world’s most populous and significant regions, includes the modern nations of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and in certain contexts Afghanistan, Maldives, Myanmar, and Tibet"

If anyone is "grafting" Tibet, it is these academic programs, not me. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

These academics are not making pronouncements on what is or is not South Asia for the wider world. Those are broad, inconsistent, working definitions for their own programs of study, picked by faculty members with little regard for how the term is commonly used outside of those programs. You should know that IP editors or registered editors from anywhere in the world would be shocked to see how large and imprecise an area this page defines as "South Asia", considering that even in Wikipedia, outside of this page and its associated template, South Asia is basically a politically correct synonym for India+Pakistan+Bangladesh, and sometimes Nepal+Sri Lanka+Bhutan. Wikipedia should seek to portray established usage, as reflected in a general survey of sources; it should not push avant-garde or pedantic definitions using cherry-picked sources. Quigley (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, they are making pronouncements and you are just rejecting them. I have quoted their very own words of how each program defines South Asia; in many cases the interests of the overall faculty is actually narrower than the the definition they provide. For example, the Berkeley citation includes Afghanistan as South Asia, but none of the professors in the the South and Southeast Asian Studies department have anything to do with Afghanistan. (This same thing is also true for Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and Bhutan). If you want to read into their motives behind their definitions, you can, but that is original research and not suitable for being applied to the page. Wikipedia is not designed to show the perceptions of average Joe, it is meant to show the perceptions of reliable sources (WP:RS). Academic departments and government agencies are reliable sources in this case, so they are the ones we are supposed to talk about, depicting generalized thoughts on what average Joe thinks is not what Wikipedia does (on a tangent, this is exactly why it is improper for people to try to remove South Asians from Asian American). You do not have any policy based arguments for removing Tibet. A general survey of academic programs frequently includes Tibet, and you simply just don't like it. If you want to notify active editors who took place in past debates and start a new one, you can (though be sure to follow Wikipedia:Canvassing) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have invited editors anyways. I notified registered users who discussed this in the past in Archives 2, 3, and 4. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I see the problem here. If Tibet and Afghanistan are sometimes included in "South Asia", and if our article says that they are sometimes included in "South Asia", then what's the problem? We aren't seeking definitional precision on wikipedia. --rgpk (comment) 15:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

My two cents - (1) Wikipedia IS pedantic, and that's the way it should be, as we can't really afford to have all the hearsay, popular myths, and personal biases presented as facts cast in stone; (2) South Asia has a core region, as defined by most sources, and also an extended definition which is not always consistent, but are endorsed by plenty authentic sources. Read the article carefully, with an open mind, and you'll see that Tibet has been presented as a part of that variable and extended definition. If the scholarly world and political decision makers haven't been able to define South Asia in absolution, I don't think we're in a position to do so. This is an encyclopedia, not a populist movement, not an original research project. Sorry, Quigley, you're wrong in more ways than one. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with ReagentsPark and Aditya Kabir. Quigley, NPOV needs to be adhered here. There are multiple, accepted definitions of South Asia. This is why there are extended definitions and why they are put in the article. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Why dont people just accept the real problem which is "Asian" - a meaningless term when describing people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.169.107 (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What in the world is south asia?

No Indian calls themselve South Asian. Indians dont even like to call themself Asian. Neither same goes for Nepali. And Afghans. And Bengali. The only time people frmo that region use the words "South Asian" is if A) There Pakistani and they dont want to be linked to anyting India, or B) there Indian and they dont want to offend or leave out Pakistanis then. This page is a joke. South Asian? It should be Indian Sub Continent. Indian Sub Continent. 71.106.222.108 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you start a petition to rename South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation to something that pleases your nationalist needs? Something like "Indian Association for Regional Cooperation"? LOL. Let me know when you succeed in convincing the regional leaders in renaming that. Perhaps THEN we can come back and talk about jokes. --Ragib (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

afghanistan is not in south asia

Afghanistan is not in south asia at all, afghans are white not brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't what the hell you are talking about. Afghans are generally tan to brown, not white. Several sources define Afghanistan as South Asia, so we list that on this page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me help you with what the "hell" we are talking about. Afghans are the most close to Iranians. As such, they are best classified as Central Asian, Middle Eastern, or part of the "greater Middle East." The fact that you are a racist, fixated on "brown skin" of the Afghans, is a waste of everyone's time here. The Scythian 21:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me make this clear. South Asia is another word for the indian subcontinent. Afghanistan is not even close to being in the indian subcontinent, it is in the iranian plateau. I suggest we split this page into two pages. South Asia, and Greater south asia, including Afghanistan and Iran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan is an Iranic/Iranian country. The race of most afghans ( excluding hazaras) is caucasion, (white). Under the U.S census Afghanistan is marked under west asia, and Afghans mark white on papers. However, Pakistan and India are considered asian, and mark asian-pacific on paper. @thegreyanomoly- The majority of afghans are light skinned to olive skinned. You are probably a jealous south asian who wants to associate afghans with him because you think that people will think of you as white if you have countries such as Afghanistan and iran as south asian. South asia is for majority indic( indo-aryan) countries, and afghanistan contains none of those type of people. kin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please learn to sign you comments with 4 ~s and please don't make racist comments. Please stop spouting nonsense and vandalizing this article and Indian subcontinent. Indian subcontinent are not always synonyms, different people define both terms differently. Reliable academic sources quite frequently define Afghanistan as part of South Asia. If you actually read the article before you edited you would know that. The Caucasian/Caucasoid race is defunct concept that doesn't really have much meaning when it comes to how people are related; most South Asians fit the definition of Caucasoid as well. Also you ought to know that the US government proper (not the census) defines Afghanistan as part of South Asia. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is an outright lie. Afghan-Americans are defined as "Middle Eastern" by the U.S government, and as such are counted as "white." I can give you U.S EEOC guidelines, college admittance definitions as well as the U.S census to back this up. You have a clear agenda, and it goes against Wikipedia policy here. The Scythian 21:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan is in the heart of asia. It is in the center of asia and from afghanistan you can go east asia south asia west asia and north of asia (Central asia). Since it's in the heart we can already establish it is in the middle because the heart generally refers to the middle. Now if you were to find an alternate meaning for middle it would be Central therefore Afghanistan is in central asia! Afghans are not linguistically culturally or historically show any relation to south asias at all in any type of way not even languages as urdu and hindi (Same language) Is the prominent langauge of pakistan and india whereas persian and pashto is afghanistan. Bear in mind Afghans are distinct from south asias in terms of look because afghans as a whole have fair skin complexion and are fairly tall and don't have indian accents when speaking either language. They don't own dairys whether they are sterotypes or not south asians usually own dairies that includes pakis. South asian is culture is distinct to all afghans as a whole and is totally foreign. Afghans are not known for desis either thats a term given to people of the indian subcontinent. Bear in mind afghanistan borders one south asian country. How many central asian does it border? 3! Where is it on the local news? West asia middle east! Whoever the guy is who said afghans are brown is obviously paki hehe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwayfield (talk • contribs) 08:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Please take a look at Wikipedia's policies on original research and reliable sourcing. Your analysis is interesting but some sort of peer reviewed journal would be a better place for it. Good luck! --regentspark (comment) 13:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Indian Subcontinent

@thegreyanamoly

I just have to say that although afghanistan can in certain contexts be considereed south asian, it cannot be considered part of the indian subcontinent. Also, why is persian listed under languages twice? And why is dari and persian listed separately. dari is a form of persian. It would be more accurate to just write persian. And the first article that I wrote was informative, and wasn't an act of vandalism.

It is supposed to be Dari and Farsi, but while Dari has its own article, Farsi redirects to Persian. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Idiot above me . Indian subcontinent stretches as far to the pakistani half of indian. The other half is middle eaat/central asia. Lol and dari is a dialect like how urdu is to hindi and how english american is to english uk learn english and read a book.

Culture, Civilization, Langauges of South Asia

The South Asian countries (i.e Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka etc) are joint with each other in culture, Language and civiliztion. For Example, Punjabi Language is spoken in Punjab Province of Pakistan and also spoken in East Punjab of India. Pushto Language is spoken in Western Parts of Pakistan and also spoken 77% in Eastern, Central and Northern Afghanistan. Bangla Language is spoken in Bangladesh and also spoken in West Bengal of India.

---

File:Subregions.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Subregions.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging "Indian subcontinent" here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

South Asia is the more popular and geographically aswell as historically and politcally the correct term for this area Indian subcontinent is defunct, I see no reason for having two pages clearly talking about the same area given South Asia is more acceptable to the other countries of south asia and this article has more information than the other one mentioned S Seagal (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

But South Asia includes far more than just the Indian subcontinent. Many people use the term to include every Asian country that is West of East Asia/southeast Asia. Saturdayseven (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ignore Saturdayseven, what they are saying is completely unsourced nonsense. If you look through the archived talk pages, I believe it was decided long ago that Indian Subcontinent would be more geological. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia this page has almost the same information as the indian subcontinent. Modern use of south asia is way more common than the subcontinent. The page itself does not serve any more purpose. I request merger of the article into South Asia.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support: The modern name and essentially the same area and the same article content. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's been discussed before, but the Indian subcontinent is a physical geography term for the section of the Indian Plate that has lodged onto the Asian Plate. It has no relation to whatever human and cultural activities take place on the surface. South Asia is a cultural term for the region that overlaps with the physical Indian subcontinent. However, they are two different entities. It was attempted in the past to separate the cultural aspects from the subcontinent article and the geological aspects from the South Asia article. More work should be put into this than another proposed merger between the articles. It would end up being a disaster for the areas in both fields that don't overlap. Caleb (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Indian subcontinent#Definition has enough references and explanation to prove that these can be merged. The geographical aspects can be categorized into sections. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is NO evidence that Indian subcontinent is a physical geography term. Almost everywhere it's used as a cultural/political/historical term. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the articles are just Wikipedia:Content forking and should be merged. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment A problem that would arise with a merge of these two articles is that, while the definitions of both terms may overlap, they are not exactly the same. South Asia often includes Afghanistan and sometimes even Iran (according to the UN definition) and some other countries. However, the subcontinent has a distinct meaning and has always been used to refer to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Countries such as Afghanistan are definitely not a part of the subcontinent. This should be taken into consideration prior to the merge being performed (if that is what consensus dictates). Mar4d (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be an "issue to solve" as a result of the merger but the current basis of oppose are given as that being a geographical term. Those issues can be solved as specifying that some definitions include those regions. I don't think that this is a geographical term for the plates & surface features? May be an expert can specify? Even so, the merge seems to be necessary as the current split has some POV taste in it (as per previous archive discussions). --lTopGunl (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Further review suggests that the issue you presented still exists with South Asia, even without the merger of Indian subcontinent with it and is managed in the article by showing definitions in a map. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(inserted) Yes. And, also consider that Afghanistan, even Tibet can be and is included in the Indian Subcontinent by authorities endorsed by institutions like Yale University, International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies and United States Department of State. The case is very much like South Asia. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion for shifting geographical content to: For those who claim "Indian Subcontinent" is a geographical term, then what is this for? Indian Plate is the term and has an article for it. Indian subcontinent on the other hand has so many references for it's interchangeability with South Asia that both articles' own references call for a merger. Any geographical content should be shifted to Indian Plate. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Supporting requests: Here are two requests that did not get any momentum, for the support of the merger in the same year. I guess they should be considered here in building consensus.

1. Talk:Indian_subcontinent#Merge_to_South_Asia.
2. Talk:Indian_subcontinent#Should_this_page_be_renamed_South_Asia.3F

--lTopGunl (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

1. The Indian Subcontinent and South Asia are pretty much the same, but I like to classify them differently because usually 'the Indian Subcontinent' does not include the Maldives. And Myanmar - not part of the Indian Subcontinent, but South Asia. 2. Though Afghan people are considered white, Afghanistan, is considered a part of the Indian Subcontinent (not always though). 3. Iran is considered a part of West Asia, not the Indian Subcontinent or South Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiantony (talk • contribs) 07:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC

This article has been merged and split once so I'm calling for a wider community attention so as to put this on a progressive route. It has been properly quoted in both articles that the latter is a contemporary term for the same and politically neutral while the first is a historical term. For geographical term, see Indian plate. Should Indian subcontinent be merged into South Asia? (See archives of both articles and discussion in this section to avoid going into circles). --lTopGunl (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose vide Mar4d. Both terms carry different connotations. Indian sub-continent is more relevant geographically while South Asia is more meaningful politically. AshLin (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That is being discussed in detail here. The geographical term is Indian plate. Indian subcontinent is rather historical name of South Asia. Both have same (and similarly varying) definitions. Further more the article them selves have sections on this point with loads of citations that the terms are interchangeable and calling for a merge. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose AshLin has it right here, Indian subcontinent is widely used by reliable sources, and we shouldn't be considering political sensitivities to name our articles here. —SpacemanSpiff 06:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is mainly based on the many citations that both articles provide for interchangeability of the term. I disagree with your comment other wise too as WP:NPOV is followed but then again, that is not the main issue. The facts being presented are them being the same topic. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Indian subcontinent is a historical/geographical and South Asia is contemporary/geograhical/economic. If there is one article, then Indian Subcontinent could be part of a history section of a South Asia article. That being said, I think that two articles are not huge problem. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that calls for a subsection in the article instead of a separate article which would have issues of duplication and forking. The once Hindustan and British India is now divided into countries that separated from India and find it more appropriate to include them selves in South Asia when talking in modern terms and the term Indian subcontinent is used in historical reference. That has been cited in the current citations though they can be used interchangeably. A subsection solely dedicated to the name Indian subcontinent would be a good idea after merger. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not even considering the people and cultures, just taking the scientific geographic perspective. We see that the indian subcontinent separated from madagascar and moved towards the asian mainland. Upon the impact of the indian subcontinent into the asian mainland the himalayas were formed. So, the subcontinent is actually a scientific term that signifies the landmass that is locked by himalayan mountain range on all side except on the sides of the sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.68.8 (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You should read this for that purpose: Indian plate. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Is North America a geography topic? We have North American Plate, which is different. The Indian Subcontinent is the large block of continental crust that rides atop the Indian plate, and is the largest piece above water. You'll notice that a chunk of Asia is part of the North American Plate, and so is half of Iceland, but that part of Asia is not part of the continent of North America. So, "Indian subcontinent" is a geographic area, different from the varying political definitions of South Asia, which does not cleanly divide on geographic boundaries anyways. However, "Indian subcontinent" is also used as a political term, just as North America and Europe are. The term "Europe" doesn't always include Russia or Turkey, even though they have portions in the continent of Europe. And North America sometimes drops Mexico and Greenland, in a political context, even though geographically, both are part of it. The political term "Indian subcontinent" is synonymous with some definitions of South Asia. Geographic/geophysical usage:[12][13][14][15][16] --- see particularly this: [17] which talks about the Cretaceous era Indian subcontinent, before it collided with Asia. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This clarifies my point even more. Just like North America is different from North American Plate, South Asia/Indian Subcontinent is different from Indian Plate. But we don't have something known as North American subcontinent now, do we? There are enough citations for the interchangeability of the term already in the articles themselves. Yes there's a geographical perspective but that would just call for a section for geography part with the main article tagged as the Indian Plate and nothing more. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

In comparison to North America, we have Anglo-America, which is a separate article from North America, and is somewhat similar to the difference between South Asia and Indian subcontinent. When people say "North America" frequently they mean "Can-Am" (Canada+USA) or Anglo-America, so separate South Asia and Indian subcontinent articles can exist. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How does it compare? Anglo-America refers to a very specific area, which is a subset within North America another very specific area. Can the same be said about Indian Subcontinent and South Asia? Has anybody ever used North America to mean South Asia, or the other way round? Can North America and Anglo-America be used synonymously? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You are confused here. Anglo-America is, as Aditya said, a subset of North America - that too not in the stricter sense since it includes a small from the South America. It is not comparable to this topic. South Asia and Indian subcontinent are used for the same area by same varying definitions and the citations are present for that. Is there any evidence that they are different? --lTopGunl (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I just showed that with the geological links. While the geophysical "Indian subcontinent" may not be the primary use of the term "Indian subcontinent", it is not the same as the geophysical being the same as South Asia. (Thus that would require that Indian subcontinent be renamed to something else like Indian subcontinent (geography)) 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you only said what you thought. The evidence is present for them being the same. Even the ones you gave here look at the Indian plate in a historical perspective loosely giving it the name Indian subcontinent. And that's why I said - it is its historical name. Do not confuse it with Indian plate. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Relisted RFC

There is a long never-ending discussion on the proposal that this page should be merged into South Asia. For lack participation there has not been any progress in the way of developing a consensus. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. People should take a look at Indian subcontinent#geology and Indian plate. According to both of these, the Indian subcontinent is just that; a separate subcontinent. The term has no bearing on the people and nations that inhabit the region. South Asia is a political division of Asia, similar to how Central Africa is a division of Africa. Indian Subcontinent should be a geographical/geological article about the physical landmass. Merging it with South Asia would not be appropriate. Anjwalker ^Talk 11:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that a political/historical entity can be signified as "mostly" founded on some tectonic plate, especially when every place on earth belongs to some plate or other, makes it a geological proposition? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, I have my point of view but don't want to offend nobody here. That is not the the point, and I think that you guys went 'very' a way of the main issue of the argument. The question here is not either South Asia/Indian Subcontinent refer to the same area or or not. I think the main purpose of this discussion is the question around which You should focus your arguments. And the Question is simple: Should South Asia/Indian Subcontinent deserves separate article space or not? After that any of you could write his arguments why they shout be separate or why not, and How this need to be done. As far as the discussion stay focused, will be easier to solve the problem and end the opponents 'EDIT WAR '. Again every one here has correct arguments, but this leads nowheres. Any way the discussion is truly interesting and count on the different point of views which is the most interesting part, and now is time to go nearer to conclusion. Thanks to inform us about the South Asia/Indian Subcontinent related aspects. I hope that my point will help any of you to rich his goals. ( Tsvetozarv 11:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsvetozarv (talk • contribs)

Do you mean to say both do not deserve an article?? You must be kidding. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose merging with South Asia as per AshLin and SpacemanSpiff. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose merger, as per Mar4d, AshLin and SpacemanSpiff. BengaliHindu (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • (inserted) Irrelevant. Per WP:VOTE and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Nearly Headless Nick and BengaliHindu are as irrelevant as AshLin and SpacemanSpiff. While Mar4d has at least an "issues to solve" argument, the rest are just getting into "I support User:X" polling without anything in the way of an argument. This is a request for comment, not a request for voting. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose anyone who is not in agreement with you will not have their "vote" counted? I have considered the matter thoroughly, and my position is best reflected by the representations made by AshLin and SpacemanSpiff. I would appreciate if you had more courtesy if not respect for the opinions of those not in agreement with you. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I have not voted at all. My only position is of questioning validity of stands taken. Whatever position I have, I am not putting it in this discussion. But, of course, an "I support" do not have enough validity per Wikipedia guidelines and common sense to be considered as an argument. Sorry about that. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think those issues pointed out by Mar4d still exist even when the articles are separate and will not just arise when we merge the two, and I guess the multiple definitions are already addressed and explained in the articles. That can be expanded further. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support I have seen so many citations in the articles that say that the titles are used for same thing. Both of them are same. This is not geography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.56.184 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose They are not the same thing. The Indian subcontinent is a term that is geographically bounded while South Asia is a term that loosely includes entities (such as Afghanistan, Iran and Burma) that are not within those geographical bounds. There are also complex historical versus contemporary usage differences that make having separate articles a better thing. I don't get this, um, urge to merge - isn't wikipedia big enough for articles on both? --regentspark (comment) 15:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think space on servers will be a valid argument, but if you meant what harm it does, see WP:POVFORK. The geographical area already has an article, Indian Plate. Ofcourse many terminologies have historical differences but that doesn't mean we have two separate articles for the two different usages, we have subsections in the articles to handle that. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The terms are different and have been used mean the one and the same thing. We have abundant literature all around the world using the term Indian subcontinent for it. merging will not serve any purpose and will rather create more ambiguity. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Since our articles' citations say otherwise, how about citing some of the claimed literature here that says that South Asia and Indian subcontinent are not the same? --lTopGunl (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are some uses of the term Indian Subcontinent in various places. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Anjwalker ^Talk 07:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed citations. Number 1 uses the term "Indian subcontinent" but doesn't state that it is different from "South Asia" - actually misses to use "South Asia" while mentioning other regions and uses "Indian subcontinent" as an alternate - and they are already acknowledged in this discussion to be alternate terms. Citation number 2 is a book about literature using the term "Indian subcontinent" like previous one, no evidence of usage different from "South Asia". Note that the usage of term "Indian subcontinent" has not been questioned in this discussion. The third citation actually uses both terms alternatively on the same page. Fourth, another mention of Indian subcontinent, no relevance to the discussion. Number five doesn't mention the term "South Asia" at all, just "Indian subcontinent" - just a usage. Number six also only uses the term, and at another point in the book it actually uses "South Asia" to refer to the same. Seven, just a mention/usage again. Number eight actually uses the term "South Asia" when using it in contemporary sense as said here. Nine, just a mention/usage. It is possible that I missed if there was any source with in these stating that the terms were used differently - could you provide a quote in that case? If the purpose of citing these here was to verify that the term "Indian subcontinent" was used for the area, there's no denying that and it was never challenged rather this is about merging the two articles under terms that are both for the same place. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not understand your statement then. Thank you anyway. Anjwalker ^Talk 02:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess you did not, feel free to ask any questions. Since you posted the comment on basis of a misunderstanding, consider striking your oppose comment? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support merge both topics. south asia is indian subcontent it is not so technical. indian subcontent is the old name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.170.106.56 (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Indian subcontinent and south asia are not the same thing. Indian subcontinent has distinct historical meaning extensively used in RS. moreover what is considered south asia is not standardized between RS.--Wikireader41 (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

See TopGun's argument right above this comment. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

and whatever makes you think I have not seen it ???--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You could not have seen it when you were posting your reason that's refuted by the comment above, because it was posted one day after you posted. And, you still have not refuted that argument. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have said what I needed to. meaningless arguments do NOT need to be refuted. pay attention to all the arguments and dont try to pretend that only people who are in agreement with you have valid arguments. --Wikireader41 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Meaningless arguments? Those would be only those which claim citations but do not present them... The issue with South Asia not being standardized is already handled in the article and can be expanded further. And I don't think he pretends as you accuse - oppose comments generally get questioned more and it is good practice to discuss in return to those questions since we're not 'voting' here. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Have fun and read up WP:LASTWORD or WP:COMPETENCE. Great essays in different ways. Wikireader41 is really showing exemplary civility. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the same users would still keep their !votes to oppose if the post merge name to retain was "Indian subcontinent". --lTopGunl (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Indian subcontinent should instead be a redirect to Indian Plate, while South Asia should mostly talk about the people. Hcobb (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be like merging North America with the North American Plate. Indian Subcontinent has nothing to do with geology or physical geography. It's just a historical term for South Asia, widely used before South Asia became a more popular term in academic, political and cultural circuits. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhaps a solution similar to that taken with Oceania and Australasia might be suitable here? It is worth consideration. Anjwalker ^Talk 02:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit different from that since the issue here is about them being the same where as they were considered in hierarchy. It is actually funny we have oppose comments at all when the users who are opposing the issue are not disputing the statements of them being synonymous in the article and yet opposing the merge and asking the articles to be kept separate and state that they are the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've listed the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography to generate more neutral comments to form a clearer consensus before we move to close this. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Having no particular bias on the issue, I think I'd support merge and split - with 'indian subcontinent' being mostly merged into 'indian plate' - and any remaining chunks making their way into the 'south asia' article - and a redirect from 'indian subcontinent' to 'indian plate' with a note in the lead of 'indian plate' indicating that it is (reference) in geological terms synonymous with 'indian subcontinent' but that the anthropomorphic useage of 'indian subcontinent' is almost synonymous with 'south asia' of which the plate forms a constituent part. EdwardLane (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a good idea... actually to add to your suggestion we can then add a hat note to the articles as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

But, there is no evidence that Indian Subcontinent is a geological term. It is rather used as a cultural geographical/political geographical term. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

inserting comment out of order - sorry :)

Search for subcontinent in here if you want evidence of geological usage :::::EdwardLane (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That website isn't accessible from my end. Curious to know what the evidence was? I have a strong feeling that it mentioned the area covered by the Indian Plate as Indian Subcontinent, connecting a cultural/political area with a geological entity. Is that right? If so, I'm afraid we are using some WP:SYNTH here (like, "since Indian Subcontinent is a term used often when mentioning Indian Plate, it must be a geological term"). Please notice that a huge number of political/cultural/historical publications use South Asia and Indian Subcontinent quite comfortably, as is already evidenced throughout the article and talk page. There is explicit academic writing, not an implicit and assumed fact, that South Asia and Indian Subcontinent are the same. Do we have the same for the geological term? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I think he said the content needs to be merged to both articles as appropriate... however I would support the redirect to South Asia instead of Indian Plate as you said. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is not agreed to. An Rfc which could not get support on its own merits is relisted in the hope of garnering more support. It is beginning to feel like a anti-Indian POV here by non-Indian South Asian editors. "South Asia" and "Indian subcontinent" are terms which have different connotations in some cases and common in some. Both deserve to exist. AshLin (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Funny it is only you who thinks "Indian subcontinent" is objected due to Republic of India when they are not related as it was the term used for the combined territory of British India. How does this get to be anti-Indian? RFC was relisted because I did not see any one coming through the bot invitations. We did need comments from neutral editors based on geography only. Also, more editors opposing does not make the consensus automatically on their side when they have given no citations for their claims. WP:NOTVOTE. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

AshLin, I am really sorry that you feel that way. It was relisted to generate more discussion. Rote arguments without evidence, supporting somebody else without any argument, or having suspicions can hardly be regarded as discussions or conductive of discussions. I can actually summarize the "discussion" with references to show you how it is going nowhere at the worst and towards a no-consensus at the best. Also, consider that consensus can change. Better logic and evidence has changed many consensus at the Wikipedia. And, finally, if you feel so strongly that the two entities - South Asia and Indian Subcontinent - are not the same. Please, make your point explicit and evidence based. If it's good logic and evidence, there's no reason this proposal can't be resolved on the basis of your point. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll recommend moving this to dispute resolution where some one can carry out some kind of mediation so that the comments lacking evidence can easily be disregarded instead of having contention on it. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ermmm... I'll not say we have a dispute here. Just a lack of factual argument. Consensus can take time, and lack of consensus doesn't always imply a dispute, only differences. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I know that we don't have dispute here... that was actually directed at the users claiming things without providing evidence for it since then it would be a dispute. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the merge. Agree with others on the subcontinent being a distinct geographical region. The history of India (prior to the partition) is tied to the Indian subcontinent. Rather than a merge, the subcontinent article needs a history section added. Political sensitivities should not determine what is included in Wikipedia. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you want British Raj when you are talking about history of Indian Subcontinent. But, yes, it has historic significance like "Indian Subcontinent is the term historically used to mean South Asia. The term was first used by...". How does historic significance as a word/phrase make it geographically distinct, when obviously the academic authority doesn't find it distinct? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In a dispute, we need verifiable and reliable references. I have not checked your listed references for reliability as yet but listing unverifiable references is not the way to go here. AshLin (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell which references are not verifiable? (Note that ease of access does not equal verifiability). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Section break

I propose that this discussion be closed as no-consensus. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I'll recommend posting it at WP:AN/RFC so that an administrator can summarize consensus and close because no citations have been given for opposing claims. If you agree please post it there or I will do it next time I visit this. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please wait. Time is of premium to me. As soon as I get some time, I will provide some citations. AshLin (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what this discussion is lacking. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And since almost two months. When I once moved your comment inside the RFC, you said you didn't want to discuss and only leave a comment. I guess this will have to be closed sooner or later. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say there are no references to support the mainstream and academic existence of the term "Indian subcontinent", when the article itself lists numerous citations. AshLin, request you to please make additional works available as references. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying the term Indian Subcontinent does not exist. That would call for a delete, not a merge. I am saying that South Asia and Indian Subcontinent are the same. Hence the call for merge. But, this assumption that I am saying Indian Subcontinent is a non-existent term goes a long a way to prove that there is serious lack of relevant participation here. To counter and argument one has to listen to that argument first. If the vote for opposition is based on the fact that the term exists, then that argument is already invalid. Because, the existence of the term was never a consideration for the merge proposal. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You are putting words into my mouth. It is clear from the sources available for both the articles, that even though the geographical area they denote overlaps, the distinction is quite large for them to be represented by simply one article. And this is just the "political" term contention. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct. Also, per your claims... you are in right to create an article for the term, say Indian subcontinent (term) if the article gets too long to represent the content related to the terms them selves. Indian subcontinent itself is referred to as South Asia by many sources already in the articles. I'll reiterate my comment that it is strange that the opposing editors do not dispute that content and yet dispute the merge. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not putting words into anyone's mouth. I think - I don't see how you can say there are no references to support the mainstream and academic existence of the term "Indian subcontinent" - is a direct quote (italics added), and it rather puts words into my mouth. Yes. The term exists. And, yes, it means South Asia. 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". I haven't seen any explicit statement with academic authority that says they are not the same.

And this probably should remain as just the "political" term contention. Because, the Indian Plate includes parts of South China and Eastern Indonesia, and excludes Ladakh, Kohistan and Balochistan. That makes it enough non-analogous to Indian Subcontinent to safely claim that it is not a geological/geophysical entity, especially when no one has suggested explicitly that it is so with any academic authority. The only evidence furnished to that end is the fact that some books have used the term Indian Subcontinent to denote the geographical extent of the geological entity of Indian Plate. Some others used South Asia, and still others used both, interchangeably. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the above references by Aditya are proof enough to merge. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: to the closer, please review the citations given and any other arguments on their own merits and basis since the discussion lacks participation and most editors have simply left their comments without further discussion on points for which citations have not been provided (infact citations in support of the merger exist). --lTopGunl (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Note 2':To, the closer. This editor is in dispute on a number of talk pages about the interpretation of references with User:TopGun. Please do not take unverifiable references at face value. Please investigate references by both sides in detail. I have asked for a some time here which has been lost in the discussion above. As such the statement that editors have left comments and moved on is not correct. Nor is it relevant that editors should stay and argue here interminably. AshLin (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how other disputes relate to this? Also, Aditya and I have no disputes you might want to verify. You might also want to keep your comments to discussion or content. Any one is free to verify the references and the ones already on both articles. I was told by this editor that he did not want to participate in the discussion previously... now asking for time after two months will hinder the progress here. And references by both sides? I see zero references being presented that say these entities are separate. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This lengthy discussion is now heading to mud slinging match instead of a serious discussion. Though not an uncommon event for the Wikipedia community, a degeneration like this is always undesirable. I feel particularly disheartened, because the last time this proposal came up, the discussion eventually degenerated into a battle of policies. I have nothing against the Indian Subcontinent. But, I also believe that an encyclopedia needs to cut down on redundancies for better navigation. If two articles are talking about the same thing, and one of them handles the subject better while the other do not have enough distinctive material to need a forking, the obvious answer is a merge. Unfortunately no one is trying prove that the two are not the same. Not yet. For now I shall hold on to the system, and withdraw myself from the current discussion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right... though I doubt this was a discussion anyway since there were only dropped comments without further backing up with citations. I've asked for a closure and left it on the closing admin to deal with the facts here. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support merge: Well now, this is a very interesting question. I would state the following:

1. Both terms have been, and are, widely used.
2. They do mean approximately the same thing, i.e. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. I would call Burma part of South East Asia. I would call Iran part of South West Asia or the Middle East. The only grey areas perhaps are Afghanistan and the Indian Ocean Islands.
3. Clarity in the dicussion is obscured by some people's dislike for one or other term.
4. When I first saw this discussion I thought it was ridiculous, the idea of removing the Indian Subcontinent page, it being such a common and notable expression, but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, it's an encyclopaedia, and it is more ridiculous to have two pages with virtually identical content, or different content expressing the same facts, so my conclusion is that merging is the correct option. Dadge (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Various definitions of South Asia.

• Oppose merge. South Asia is defined more broadly to include the countries in the Indian subcontinent plus several others, so those two terms are not the same, while Indian Plate is a purely geological term referring to the tectonic plate bearing the Indian subcontinent plus a slice of ocean. In general, some topics fit better in South Asia, and others (such as flora and fauna) in Indian subcontinent. -- 202.124.74.199 (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

South Asia is not defined very sharply as explained in the article. It has varying definitions. That does not mean that it is not the same as Indian subcontinent - the varying definitions can be (and already are) clarified in the article per WP:DUE. What would be the basis for the topics you categorized? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification of the inclusion of Southeast Asian countries and Hong Kong under South Asia

"the Centre of South Asian Studies at the University of Cambridge ... has also extended its activities to include Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, the Philippines and Hong Kong.[44]"

From the write-up of itself, the Centre of South Asian Studies states that it studies both South Asia and Southeast Asia. The fact that these two separate terms are employed and not welded together - as in the case of using only a single term, "South Asia", to refer to the two regions - and that Southeast Asia has not been subsumed under South Asia, means that the above quote from the article should be contextualised, qualified or quite simply, corrected. There should be clarification that the countries "Thailand... Hong Kong" are not defined by the Centre as being part of South Asia, but rather that they are studied by the Centre because the Centre also studies Southeast Asia besides South Asia; it is just that the the term "Southeast Asia", for some reason, is absent from the title "Centre for South Asian Studies". The sentence I have quoted is important in the discussion of what constitutes South Asia, and so it is imperative that it be edited and made accurate. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Just go ahead and make the necessary changes. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Iran is not a part of South Asia

The UN has not 'ruled' that Iran is a part of South Asia. Only the 'United Nations geoscheme' has included Iran in South Asia only for 'statistical purposes' and no other reason. See United Nations geoscheme where it clearly states that: "According to the United Nations, 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." - Iran is NOT a part of South Asia under any category (geography, history, culture, political affiliation). اردیبهشت (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and what you've quoted is pertinent here. Irānshahr (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"POV" issues

The UN has not 'ruled' that Iran is a part of South Asia. Only one UN scheme, the 'United Nations geoscheme' has included Iran in South Asia only for 'statistical purposes' and no other reason. See United Nations geoscheme where it clearly states that: "According to the United Nations, 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." - Iran is NOT a part of South Asia under any category (geography, history, culture, race, political affiliation). اردیبهشت (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Do you know HOW MANY YEARS of history we have w/ S Asia? W Asian neighbors have mainly ATTACKED Iran, and Turkey (which Iran is greatly aligned with in many ways) is primarily Central Asian. NORTHERN ARABIA, is the only place Iranian peoples located in W Asia, and they are the Kurds, who were a migratory (and are) people. I am again NOT DELETING W ASIA, just supplanting more information to Iran to demonstrate its vastness. Hello, what about the Mughal empire?! And other empires before that were INFUSED with Persian genes and culture for YEARS. Read the wikipedia article and the sources from Cavalli (geneticist): we share better genetic affinity with our central asian neighbors and even S Asian neighbors (except only Kurds) than W Asians (mainly a Semetic peoples). Therefore, to reinforce the differentiation that MUST be made between Iran and Semetic nations (that Iran is NOT PART OF, genetically, culturally, many ways, we must at least INCLUDE Central and Southern Asia in these articles. This is why I am compromising! Is not this fair enough? To let all of these places be included? I am an Iranian (Mazandarani), and from a heavy Turkish family. I want to include our Central Asian influences!! My father is Balochi; which IS HEAVILY genetically South Asian, and homogenous with genes thereto with South Asia. They deserve to be included too! Why are we arguing about this! WHy? -Mtheory1 (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Iran is usually NOT part of South Asia! By far!

Iran is NOT part of South Asia! Are you people for real?? Just because the United Nations think it can be included, you put it in the intro as if the UN rules Iran?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.142.220 (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We go by what sources say, not by what we think is correct or not. If the UN thinks it can be included, then that's what we're going to say here as well. --regentspark (comment) 13:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What's so dubious?

Someone tagged the fact that Pakistan is also a major political force, along with India the largest country by size, population and economy, in the region with a "dubious" tag. The facts that Pakistan fought four wars against India, and still plays a major role in Afghan politics and a minor role in Bangladesh politics, and is a major US ally in its "war against terrorism" (in the past it was the NATO ally in the region) as well as a major Chinese ally in southern Asia should tell us something. What's so dubious here? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Only the first is true. Pakistan is a quarter the size of India, has a 7th its economy, and only a 10th its population, basically tied w Bangladesh. Vietnam has fought wars against China and has played a major role in Cambodian politics, but we'd hardly equate it with China. — kwami (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no attempt to equate. The article says that Pakistan is a major political force in the South Asia. How does that imply equating or even comparing it with any country? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should read your own question? — kwami (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe you should read your answer. India is 20 times bigger France in population, 5 times bigger in size and its economy more than double the size of France's economy. Obviously, by your reasoning, France is not a global political entity. Very curious reasoning. It doesn't count that Pakistan has a near hegemony over Afghanistan, has serious influence in Bangladesh, is a major ally to US and China, has a military expenditure of USD 7 billion, and is a nuclear power. Interesting.

Why would someone compare France to India to assert that France is a global political entity? Why would someone compare France to India to assert that it is a South Asian political entity? Japan is a major political force in Asia, but that didn't come from comparing it to China, its bigger neighbor. UAE is 9th in world in GDP per capita, 32nd in GDP and is the 6th largest military spender in Asia. But, with all those comparisons done Syria remains a much bigger political entity than UAE. Because, a political entity comes out of ambition, activity and influence, not out of size, though size helps when a country has the ambition.

Tariq Ali (The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power), T. V. Paul (The India-Pakistan Conflict: An Enduring Rivalry), Syed F. Hasnat (Global Security Watch—Pakistan), Lucian W Pye (Asian Power and Politics: The Cultural Dimensions of Authority), Rajshree Jetly (Pakistan in Regional and Global Politics), Peter R. Blood (Pakistan: A Country Study), Arlene B. Tickner (Global Scholarship in International Relations) and tons of other analysts, academicians and experts have identified Pakistan as a major regional political entity. Where is the doubt? Can you explain your doubt? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This is silly. 1/10 ≠ 1. — kwami (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Afghanistan, Nepal and Bhutan not under British rule?

This is not, strictly speaking, true. All three were British protectorates at one time or another (Bhutan being treated as a princely state). -- MichiganCharms (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Afghanistan was never a British protectorate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.16.65 (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Afghanistan was a British protectorate until 1919, after the Afghans lost to the British in the Second Anglo-Afghan war. A protectorate does NOT retain its independence, and is under British suzerainty, and was therefore under British rule. : http://www.afghangovernment.com/briefhistory.htm

Definitions of South Asia

framelss

User:LouisAragon has reverted my attempts (here and here) to put all stated definitions of South Asia together. He has reverted my edits twice (here and here).

Here are the viewpoints:

• My rationale is pretty simple: There can't be two definition sections in one article, with half a dozen other sections between them.
• His rationale is pretty simple too: The UN classification deviates from the usual definitions and hence can't be together with other definitions.
• The Wikipedia policies are pretty simple again: "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." (WP:BALANCE)

Notice that the section begins with:

Although there's a distinct core of countries that were formerly part of the British Empire in defining the South Asia, there is much variation as to which (if any) other countries are included.

And, it ends with:

A lack of coherent definition for South Asia has resulted in not only a lack of academic studies, but also in a lack interest for such studies. The confusion exists also because of a lack of clear boundary - geographically, geopolitical, socio-culturally, economically or historically - between South Asia and other parts of Asia, especially the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Identification with a South Asian identity was also found to be significantly low among respondents in a two-year survey across Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

The section is largely about the deviations. Even the map (shown here) explains the same variations.

Two additional points:

1. In the process of straight revert LouisAragon has undone my other edits - restructuring the geography/geology sections and expanding the article. He has restored one removed section though.
2. His version of deviating definitions include definitions by UNPOPIN and UNESCAP definitions. Both are very close to the usual definitions (core 7 countries, SAARC etc.).

Regards. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. As one can see, the map and definitions show that virtually all of the regular, commonly used definitions are quite the same. They all use somewhat the same countries, the same territories, and the same reasons for why doing so. The only one that deviates (not just deviates, it deviates very strongly), is the one founded by the UN, and as they state themselves;

The UN states, that their definition was solely created for "statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories."

They base their definition on something "totally" different than the regular, widely used definitions, namely, they base it on statistical purposes rather than any affiliation the regions, or governments, or people have with each other.

There were many first hand accounts of users who were content with the change made prior to Aditya Kabir's change, as it made a much better, clear distinguishing between the definitions actually based on affiliation, and are commonly used worldwide, and the one by the UN created for something totally different, and virtually never used, save by the UN itself.

As it's something totally different, we created a different subsection for it, lower down the article with a quick referencing link to it at the top of the article so any person can click on it if he wants to read more about these strongly deviating definitions.

The fact remains, the reason why the UN has created their definition and on what they base it, strongly deviates from the commonly, globally used definitions. When something is that deviating or that different from the norm (namely the commonly used definitions and arguments for using the termination of South Asia etc), you just can't put it together with the rest.

Edit war

I indeed only reverted Aditya Kabir's edits made regarding the definitions section and that what related to it. I readded all his other additions later on.

Regards. LouisAragon (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Not so. But, that's a minor point. To get opinions of uninvolved editors I am posting the discussion to the community. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That last edit was a clear violation of WP:3RR. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

The first time I had to revert it was because of your own mistake, you even left a [comment] about it on my page. My bad. Fixing that now. Aditya(talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)" And by the way, if you really want to bring up WP:3RR, you know that you're actually the first one to violate it right? - 17:34, 22 May 2014‎ Aditya Kabir (talk | contribs)‎ . . (68,095 bytes) (+1,673)‎ . . (→‎Definitions: restored the united nations definitions) - 22:33, 22 May 2014‎ Aditya Kabir (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,400 bytes) (+468)‎ . . (merged sections) - 04:18, 23 May 2014‎ Aditya Kabir (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,636 bytes) (+1,551)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 609734668 by Aditya Kabir (talk): Restored. (TW)) As compared to mines; - 22:10, 22 May 2014‎ LouisAragon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (66,935 bytes) (-1,673)‎ . . (Undid revision 609697038 by Aditya Kabir (talk) We already have that info covered South Asia#Additional deviating definitions. Thanks) <-- (This one was made due to User:Aditya Kabirs own admitted error) - 23:14, 22 May 2014‎ LouisAragon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (66,935 bytes) (-4,701)‎ . . (Reverted edit by Aditya Kabir. Please bring up your suggestions about moving the additional deviating definition by the UN to the talkpage. Will readd the rest of your changes made.) - 17:22, 23 May 2014‎ LouisAragon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,085 bytes) (-3,109)‎ . . (WP:GF; reverting in good faith; there has not yet a consensus been reached on the talk page.) LouisAragon (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are you rying to prove all the wrong things? You almost managed to establish to be:

1. A lier. You say, "I readded all his other additions later on." Really? Look at what I had to salvege from your carelessness here.
2. A pretender. Your collapsed comment above on the revert log is not even half funny. Trying to pretend that you don't understand WP:3RR is not going make you look innocent. And, yes, if you continue to disrupt, I will take this to the community for admin action.

Regards. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC

There's been a dispute over content structuring between LouisAragon and I. It verges on the brink of an edit war. The objects of the disagreement are described right above the RfC template. Please, comment. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the comments above, the entire section (in both versions) looks like a mess to me. For example, why do we need to talk about the British Empire, add explanations about princely states, explicitly exclude Singapore and Aden, etc? Should we also explain why Canada, Australia, the various African Colonies, Malta, Palestine, etc. etc. are not included? I think Aditya is on the right simplification track. South Asia is not a political entity but rather a convenience term and why the UN or Brandeis chooses this or that country for inclusion or exclusion is not as important as explaining to the reader that the term comes with some amount of uncertainty. I don't see much point in separating out the UN definition. --regentspark (comment) 23:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The mess is not a problem, if it can be worked on. Here is the section with further improvements. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

With the participator opining for a consolidated definitions section along with further rationale, I believe, a consensus have been reached. Editing to incorporate the new and improved "mess"-free version of the section. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)