Talk:Indian subcontinent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject South Asia (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.
WikiProject Afghanistan (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Indian subcontinent is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Maldives (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Maldives, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Maldives on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Bhutan (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bhutan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bhutan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Bangladesh (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
The article falls into the work area of the Geography workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh
WikiProject Nepal (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. WikiProject icon
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Disambiguations of terms[edit]

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

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

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

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

Origin and history of term?[edit]

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

And I see I asked this six years ago too!

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

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

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

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

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

Indian reunification[edit]

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

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

Increasingly being replaced by south asia[edit]

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

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

Merge to South Asia[edit]

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

No. That'd be eight citations or more. Aditya(talkcontribs) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Should this page be renamed South Asia?[edit]

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

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

The two articles were merged earlier. But, some people think strongly that Indian Subcontinent must have a separate articles. I am not too sure why. But, since they are operating within the policies and guidelines, there's little that can be done at moment. It would definitely start another feud. Aditya(talkcontribs) 00:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This is little different than having different articles about the New World, Americas, Western Hemisphere, and the like ... all of which have a degree of synonymity and overlap, but are distinct concepts. They do not always mean the same thing. 76.67.18.192 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, all three articles mention all other usages in the lead, while you're totally bent on removing any mention of Indian Subcontinent from the lead of the article on South Asia. And, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument anyways. Aditya(talkcontribs) 14:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
'Indian subcontinent' is already noted in the lead of that article, just differently -- in none of the articles above is the other term bolded and such, which is addressed in my commentary at SA and which has been glazed over. As well, an entire section of that article is devoted to the issue. (I advocate balanced text, not skewed as it was there.) And, yes, other crap definitely exists... 76.67.18.192 (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Recent edits to Scope section[edit]

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

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

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

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

I used the word “alleged” because the various definitions are obviously mutually contradictory, and are not comprehensive. Besides, the term Indian Sub-continent is not a political term like South Asia or West Asia, but is also a term to define a geographical land mass. These terms transcend international political boundaries. For example, A present day atlas would depict the Plains of India to include most of Bangladesh and parts of Pakistan. Other geographical land masses are inter alia plateau of Tibet, British isles , Tableland of Iran, Mongolian Plateau, Siberian Plain or Scandinavian Peninsula. The fact that the definitions are from an encyclopedia does not ipso facto confer legitimacy to the statement and even encyclopedias are liable to err and be biased. I used the words, “now administered as though part…” because admittedly the fact that Aksai Chin is part of Kashmir is disputed by the Chinese., and to say that the area is allegedly part of China would be erroneous and would make the article be bereft of even a façade of neutrality!
The information that Maldives, an archipelago country is part of the bigger Lakshadweepa archipelago which extends as far south as the Chagos which is historically part of India are already available in the articles Lakshadweepa and Chagos and I am not responsible for the information in the aforesaid articles. Again, I replaced Greater India with Classical India because, the previous statement read… “The definition of the geographical extent of Indian subcontinent varies. Historically forming the whole territory of Greater India,”. Which is incorrect because Greater India admittedly includes areas which are not part of the India Proper like inter alia Transoxiana(area to the north of the Oxus and thus ipso facto does not include Afghanistan), Khotan, Tibet, Japan, China, Uzbekistan, all the area extending from Burma to Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines whereas Classical India is restricted to India Proper. In other words, Greater India, begins after India Proper ends.
Apropos the statement "So there is no controversy or vagueness, real or imaginary, whatsoever apropos the ambit or scope of the extent of the Indian Sub-continent.”, It is a fact that with the induction of Afghanistan, in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation all the countries of the Indian subcontinent have been included and the presence of other foreign countries can only be as observers and neither China nor Burma which are part of East Asia and South East Asia respectively can aspire for full-fledged membership. “Badly written, entirely unsourced, and rife with editor commentary”, I don’t think so! But if I broke a link, It is inadvertent because I tried to find out where a number of times but every thing seems prima facie fine and I am hence convinced that no link has been disrupted, and it is certainly not vandalism.
Sadly, SQGibbon in spite of my suggestion has with out using the discussion page to discuss issues pertaining to my edit which according to him are controversial amicably with me and arrive at a consensus amicably now is resorting to this trick.59.92.37.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC).
First, your vandalism. In your edit summary you stated "Sorry, I honestly am unable to find out where I allegedly broke the link. No vandalism!" You made this same edit here, here, here, and here all of which broke the same links and added text to the end of the page. Making the edit once can easily be a mistake, making the same edit three more times constitutes vandalism. I addressed your vandalism specifically with my edits here, here, and here.
Now for the section starting "Irrespective of the aforesaid alleged ...". You offer a definition of "Indian subcontinent" that differs from some of the others supplied in this section. Unfortunately this definition is based on an organization that uses the term "South Asian" in its name. It does not refer to itself as the "Indian Subcontinent Association for Regional Cooperation" so where is the relevance? Further, after checking their website, I do not see where they define "Indian Subcontinet" or even "South Asia". But even if they did why does their definition take absolute precedence over the other ones provided in the same section? These are all definitions from reliable and notable sources and the fact they disagree with each other justifies the tone of that section and the use of the statement "The definition of the geographical extent of Indian subcontinent varies." which all taken together contradicts and invalidates your statement "So there is no controversy or vagueness, real or imaginary, whatsoever apropos the ambit or scope of the extent of the Indian Sub-continent".
Given that the definition does vary your claim that there is no vagueness needs a citation. You didn't supply one. All you did was infer a definition based on the charter membership of one particular organization.
Finally, "Sadly, SQGibbon in spite of my suggestion has with out using the discussion page to discuss issues pertaining to my edit which according to him are controversial amicably with me and arrive at a consensus amicably now is resorting to this trick." What? I am the one who started the discussion on this page, you did not. SQGibbon (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, your phrase "now administered as though part" is in no way neutral. That region is controlled and administered by China. Whether it should be (as implied by your usage of "though") is not for us to comment on here or in the article. It is administered as part of China and that's all that needs to be said. Also, I did not change "Classical" back to "Greater" even though I don't see how it makes things any clearer. The classical period of India spanned many centuries and the boundaries changed throughout this time leaving a rather vague definition. There should be a better way to phrase this. SQGibbon (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Totally agreed. The removed part was a piece of unreferenced WP:OR that stood directly against reference facts. Putting that in may be an act of good faith, but calling its removal and act of vandalism doesn't seem to be made in that much of good faith. Aditya(talkcontribs) 13:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

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

The sources I provided for the term "Indo-Pak subcontinent" were independent mainstream sources. Here are more That provide such evidence of mainstream usage: in academic work [1], in news sources [2]. The term has been mentioned in 24,200 results of google books and 68,200 results of a google search for news about the term. I think this would be mainstream usage and can safely be added along side the other terms used. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Since those sources seem to be Pakistani sources, or at least sensitive to Pakistani concerns, I have restored mention of the alternative name with that qualification as a compromise. Shrigley (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, but for record, the publisher is Pakistan based, but not a Pakistani source. It is an independent mainstream news source. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Removal of sources[edit]

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

Interchangeability with "South Asia"[edit]

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

There was no consensus for a merger according to Nearly Headless Nick two sections up. I will look at these sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I know, I didn't ask for a merge here... it was unchallenged that those sources acknowledge interchangeability of the terms and I reviewed them closely then. The reasons for no consensus was just plain numbers who didn't want it to be merged. It is a waste of time or probably WP:IDONTLIKEIT to go against the sources here and adding "unacceptable to many" without a source and attributing "some" for interchangeability when all the sources say so. And for a change, let the editor who is editwarring over it reply for his own edits. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Added the links for you, shall post on your talk page later to let you know the easiest way to look at diffs. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
If you are done with your WP:TLDR try reading a bit about how consensus is achieved on wikipedia. You've not bothered to discuss a single time and have continuously reverted. That is editwar. If you do that again, I will report you. You can not force your edits in by repeatedly reverting, that will get you a quick block. And I don't think you've read what I wrote above.... There are enough sources which call them to be the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you discuss before reverting my edits (and many other editors' edits)? For you, it has always to be a one-way traffic. Others must discuss with you before editing any text regarding India. But you will not discuss before reverting others' edits regarding India. You think you a right of veto on edits by others on articles containing the word "India". You reinstated factually incorrect text [7] by reverting my edit [8] and another editor to chide you [9] by stating "that is so factually incorrect it stuns me that you reverted it back in". But according to you that is not editwar by you. Why - because YOU reverted and you think yourself exempt from discussing before reverting others' edits regarding India? You always consider yourself right in your Indophobia frame of mind.

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

Removal of content[edit]

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

...because it is inaccurate and unbalanced - the scope section details the components of the subcontinent, with 3 core countries. It is also an entity defined not just in the context of countries but physically. As well, do you maintain that a workbook is an authoritative reference despite others in the article? It is no wonder articles like this are little more than politically-biased cruft from ill-informed contributing editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.110.64 (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Then it is the scope section which requires expansion and modification. The region obviously comprises more than three countries after all. I will also refer you to WP:LEDE the lede is meant to be a short overview of an article, hence the other nations need to be mentioned. Perhaps I am not so ill informed as you might think. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
And that section is relatively broad, while the lede - since it is a summary - need not include the kitchen sink (otherwise, we should include Afghanistan, Maldives and perhaps Aksai Chin) but only the lowest common denominator ... which means just the 3 core countries. The reference has been moved down. 184.144.110.64 (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism has a specific meaning. And what was it you wrote earlier about not being ill-informed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.110.64 (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:LEDE any further removal of content by you will be treated as vandalism. You have been warned enough now. You have no consensus for your changes, your edits violate WP:LEDE, your blanking of content is vandalism. Stop, discuss and get consensus for your changes. Seek a WP:3O if you feel it is needed or try a WP:RFC Darkness Shines (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

South Asia[edit]

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

Exactly. That statement is just plain ridiculous. What's more, it cites as source a book that has nothing to do with the subject. Why on earth is this still on the page? KelilanK (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
And it contradicts the rest of the page. I would remove it, but the page is protected. --Khajidha (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Khajidha, would you remove that piece of strangeness from the article? Aditya(talkcontribs) 11:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Diamond?[edit]

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

That source does not, this one does Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies p596 " The subcontinent is a roughly diamond-shaped area about 1,500 miles from north to south and the same east to west" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
And Culture and customs of India p5 "India's diamond-shaped land mass is centered in the South Asian subcontinent" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The BBC uses Asian subcontinent[edit]

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

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

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

Definitions of the extent of the Indian subcontinent.[edit]

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

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

Content removal[edit]

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

According to historians Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, the Indian Subcontinent has come to be known as South Asia "in more recent and neutral parlance."[1] 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.[2] 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".[3][4]

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

And what to do mean by "rather disjointed"? Aditya(talkcontribs) 23:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently I wasn't paying enough attention or just got confused with the mass of references, I meant to remove these sentences: ""Indian Subcontinent" is a term adopted and used by the British Empire.[4] The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are used interchangeably.[5]" They seem to be rather inelegantly tacked on and the long list of such disparate references for such simple statements smacks of synthesis. --Khajidha (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If you are uncomfortable about the copy, you are most welcome to improve it. Batter English is always welcome. But if you are suspicious of SYNTH, please note that all of the sources, there's quite a few provided, explicitly state or exemplify the information. Please make sure that your discomfort is WP:JDL. This article has a long history of JDL. And, just for reference, more on the subject is there in South Asia. It will be very helpful if you stick to fundamental policies and principles. "This is not elegant" or "this has a long list of refs" probably are not very good reasons to remove sourced and cited information. Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
What does the sentence "The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are used interchangeably." tell us that is not already covered by the first sentence: "The region has been variously labelled as India (in its pre-modern sense), Greater India, the Indian Subcontinent and South Asia."? --Khajidha (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Us? I can only see you. If you meant the Wikipedia community by "us", then let me politely remind you that I have been a part of "us" way longer than you are. It would be nice to talk to a person (i.e. you) than talking to a nameless crowd of "us". That's the spirit of collaboration, and the spirit of Wikipedia.
Now, answering your question - these two sentences, while overlapping, are not about the same thing. India and Greater India are pre-modern concepts that are no longer in use. South Asia and Indian Subcontinent concepts still in use. And, if Wikipedia wants to be useful as an encyclopedia then it is important that we need to present (this "we" also includes you) an unambiguous and explicit perspective on the concepts that exist as entries/articles.
Finally, your argument has started to look strongly like JDL, as you already have used 4/5 uniqely different arguments to validate your removal of sourced, cited and relevant content: (a) they are disjointed, which you have failed to prove; (b) they don't relate to the sources, which is a blatant misrepresentation of facts; (c) they are inelegant, which is no ground for content removal; (d) they have a long list of sources, which is actually very good; (e) they smack of SYNTH, which looks strongly like a misreading of the policy; and (f)they are made redundant by another sentence, which is refuted. Do you think you have any other arsenal to use?
May be you don't like the copy, and how it is written. That, though subjective, is possible. You may try to improve the copy, but, of course, without removing information that are compliant with every policy, guideline and tradition here. Aditya(talkcontribs) 04:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

South Asia over lap content removal[edit]

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

  1. ^ Sugata Bose & Ayesha Jalal, Modern South Asia, pages 3, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 0415307872
  2. ^ Ronald B. Inden, Imagining India, page 51, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000, ISBN 1850655200
  3. ^ Judith Schott & Alix Henley, Culture, Religion, and Childbearing in a Multiracial Society, pages 274, Elsevier Health Sciences, 1996, ISBN 0750620501
  4. ^ Raj S. Bhopal, Ethnicity, race, and health in multicultural societies, pages 33, Oxford University Press, 2007, ISBN 0198568177