Talk:South Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Afghanistan, Nepal and Bhutan not under British rule?[edit]

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)

Iran is usually NOT part of South Asia! By far![edit]

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)

Afghanistan and Iran do not belong to South Asia[edit]

Afghanistan and Iran are both 'iranic' countries with the same culture Southern, eastern, Western and north eastern Afghanistan do have a iranian culture and Northern afghanistan has a Central asian culture. Afghanistan is part of a South asian organisation (SAARC) but also to CAREC an central asian cooperation so that's not a reason to let it be part of south asia. We don't south asian culture and your food we don't speak indo aryan languages but Iranian languages like Persian, Pashto, Balochi and we speak turkic languages like turkmen and uzbeki

We should end this discussion. You have to understand everything that is written on wikipedia is used for learning and i don't want that in the future People say Afghanistan and iran are south asian countries which they are not. Feysalafghan (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Afghanistan should be listed as sometimes included in South Asia during the introduction, as it's not considered a South Asian country by all sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.16.65 (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Eh, Afghanistan is both clear cut in South Asia and Central Asia. Nothing else. Iran is only included into South Asia by one instantion in the whole world and that is a department of the UN, and they only base it on stastistic purposes rather than any affliation towards the nations and peoples. LouisAragon (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree with the previous user. Afghanistan is sometimes included in South Asia because of the common historical and cultural ties with neighboring Pakistan. But Iran is only included for "statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories", which can be seen in the article as well. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
In the article it says exactly that - Iran is made part of South Asia by United Nations geoscheme. It also says that some scholars think that the entire Southeast Asia should be part of South Asia, and that some sources make far islands like British Indian Ocean Territory and Mauritius part of South Asia. The article also explicitly says that there are seven core countries (not including even Afghanistan, a member of SAARC), not Iran, Southeast Asia or the Island countries. Aditya(talkcontribs) 16:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Lump it. From where I sit India does not belong in "South Asia" but you have to understand that we just present the RS that are floating around in this huge world of ours. Some of them are going to disagree with each other, some will even be wrong, but we still present them. The argument you're really looking for is WP:FRINGE but the article lays out who is including them and why and you'd be in the wrong trying to remove any of it. (Related, good on you trying to bring "Iranic" back but the cultural word in English is "Persian". The Persian Afghans are called Tajiks and are very far from a dominant influence in the country.) — LlywelynII 15:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

What's so dubious?[edit]

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(talkcontribs) 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(talkcontribs) 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(talkcontribs) 12:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This is silly. 1/10 ≠ 1. — kwami (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A problem with definitions in US English[edit]

This whole article is not understood in UK English For us (I am British), the term South Asian conjures up countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, etc. The countries included in this category we Brits would think of as (pre-independance) India/North West Frontier.

I can't give you any intellectual references as to why this is; merely my personal experience. Many of my neighbours' families originate from this part of the world and wouldn't describe themselves as 'South Asian'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.36.83 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you cite some sources? Because British sources clearly describes the countries included as South Asia, and never countries like Thailand etc. Also There never was any mention of North West Frontier when describing the countries included. I come from South Asia, and I am perfectly willing put more significance to credible sources than my personal information/misinformation. Aditya(talkcontribs) 05:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand that in the UK, "Asian" is typically understood to mean South Asian, just as in the US it is understood to mean East Asian, but that's due to immigration, where the Asian population originates. I've never heard of any confusion when "South Asian" or "East Asian" is spelled out. According to the OED, as of 1993, South Asia is the area bounded by Burma, Iran, China, and Central Asia: that is, Afghanistan and the Indian sub-continent. The only other denotation they note is an isolated use for Australia from 1827. Then there's SAARC, where South Asian countries use the term "South Asia" for self-designation. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That is about the "Asians", not "South Asians". Anyways, the issue should be solved now. Aditya(talkcontribs) 12:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The actual OED has no entry whatsoever on "South Asia". www.oxforddictionaries.com has one, but it's hardly as authoritative. — LlywelynII 15:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not "US English", it's just "PC English". I'm an American and (as much as I understand the strict accuracy of the present definition) "South Asia" produces the exact same image in my mind as you're describing. "Southwest Asia" is the Middle East; what is being called "South Asia" here is just sui generis India... or, if we're trying to accommodate Burma and Pakistan, the Subcontinent. 'South Asia' by default is the grab-bag of the countries in Indochina, what we're calling "Southeast Asia". And for what it's worth, I feel that way despite being born well after the fairly recent birth of all of these terms, which won't be true for all of our users.
Thing is, it is politically impossible to call this region India or greater India and, yep, it's pretty orientalizing to continue to use "the Subcontinent" in official contexts... so I completely understand why the usage is changing.
BUT I do wish we could find some RS to lay out what's so clearly in both of our minds, in both Britlish and English, so we could get up an explanatory hatnote about the shift and a clearer link to what we're both looking for when we type in "South Asia". I can find things like this account of the history of the radish where the author writes about it spreading from "southern Asia" to "India" but nothing that's a RS that just lays out our colloquial idea. — LlywelynII 15:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
PC or not, South Asia has become a standard term for referring to the region. University departments, for example, use "South Asian Studies". Definitionally, it is pretty much the way the article describes it. A core of countries with a bunch of peripheral countries that need to be included because of the history of the region - history does not follow clean modern national boundaries :) There are some differences between US and UK academic departments (Afghanistan is generally included by both, Burma tends to figure more in the UK definition and less so in the US version, and Iran is really peripheral in both cases - rarely included but often studied because of its long historical shadow) and I don't think the text does a good enough job of bringing all this out (partly because there is a political tussle amongst Wikipedia editors). BTW, I don't agree that the term Indian Subcontinent is orientalized. It is well used and is actually definitionally much clearer because it is tied to a geological entity. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitions of South Asia[edit]

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(talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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(talkcontribs) 14:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
That last edit was a clear violation of WP:3RR. Aditya(talkcontribs) 18:38, 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(talkcontribs) 04:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

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(talkcontribs) 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(talkcontribs) 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(talkcontribs) 03:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Iran and LouisAragon[edit]

LouisAragon has found a purpose of editing this article. He just doesn't like the fact that the United Nations geoscheme includes Iran as a part of South Asia. He has tried to make that piece of information as invisible as possible in the past. Splitting the definition section and shifting the Iran part lower down the article and reducing the regional country grouping section and shifting it lower down.

Since the policies, the sources and consensus restrained him from doing that (he was also nice enough to comply after a long and bitter argument). Now he has come back with a different strategy. He wants to remove as many mention of the geoscheme as possible. The rest he is explaining away with help from as much original research as possible.

  • The geoscheme information began with: "The United Nations heavily deviates in its definition of South Asia." He has added: "It's the only institution in the world that adds Iran."[peacock term][dubious ][citation needed]
  • Then he went on to add: "By the most deviating definition[weasel words] of the region based on completely different reasons[weasel words] by certain departments of the UN,[weasel words] Iran is added as well. However, the definition was solely created for statistical convenience[original research?] and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories[how?]."[POV? ][dubious ][citation needed] Later he removed Iran and added "sometimes" before Tibet.
  • The article said: " China, Iran and Myanmar has also applied for the status of full members of SAARC." To that he added: "while Russia and Turkey have applied for observer status", trying to equate observer status with membership, and implying that those countries are somewhat part of South Asia (that would surely cushion the pain of Iran's inclusion into South Asia).
  • Then he removed the geoscheme boundary from the boundary section because he thinks - Not needs to further explain hugely deviating "situations" (in this case geographical boundary. This is what he removed - "Per the UN's definition the wider subregion's northern frontier is the Himalayas and southerly post-Soviet states of Central Asia (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, bordering northern Afghanistan and Iran), its western boundary is the westerly border of Iran (with Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, and Iraq), and its eastern boundary is the westerly border of Burma (with India and Bangladesh)."
  • And then, in the geography section, then he replaced the vegetation map with a climate map (which would be a better fit in the climate section) stating - Changed map with a map actually related to the commonly used definitions of South Asia.
  • The article wrote: "The current territories of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan (the core of the British Empire prior to 1947) form the core countries of South Asia, while the mountain countries of Nepal and Bhutan, and island countries of Sri Lanka and Maldives are generally included. Afghanistan and Myanmar are often added, and by various definitions, the British Indian Ocean Territory, Mauritius, Iran and the Tibet Autonomous Region are included as well." To this he added: "and by various deviating definitions based on often substantially different reasons[unbalanced opinion]."[POV? ]

In his pain for Iran he has forgotten that WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV are core policies, and you can't ignore them even if you don't agree with the United States or scholarly sources. I am removing all that WP:POVPUSH from the article. If LouisAragon disagrees he can seek to build a WP:CON for his version per WP:BRD. Aditya(talkcontribs) 04:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You really have not much to do, do you, finding all these weird complot theories? But sure, find us another independent institution/organisation in the world that adds Iran. We'll wait. Also find me any quote where I state that I don't want Iran added, as you state as if you can read peoples mind (hilarious). Iran is part of South Asia as of several of the UN definitions, and that's a fact. However, it also doesn't "change" the fact that it's the only institution in the world that does so. Iran was still part the intro, and definition. I don't see anything wrong with the version it was before your change. When as of an example, 99 definitions add 7 countries, but the final last one adds 8, then that final last definition is a "heavily deviating one", whether you like it or not. And "especially", when they base their definition on something totally different too. Also, I added Russia and Turkey as that's the two nations that applied for observer status as of recently. Has nothing to do with the nation Iran, or do you want to state that also ain't true? From the very first line you wrote, one could reek the heavy stench of WP:JDL. WP:JDL, and nothing else.
The last version didn't state "anything" that wasn't true, and you know it. Now, sir complot theory, prove us otherwise. LouisAragon (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Everything redeemable has been salvaged from the restoration, including the rationale for UN geoscheme (the word "heavily" is replaced with a more formal word "significantly"). By the way, who is "we" in "we'll wait" and who is "us" in "prove us otherwise"? If you mean the Wikipedia community then know two things – (1) I am a part of that "we"/"us" as much as you are; and (2) the larger community likes to uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not personal opinions.
Now for the errors in the reasoning above:
  1. I get this "complot theory" Talk:Daria-i-Noor and here, where I witnessed the same single purpose editing of an article. You pushed the POV of "Iran has a Daria-i-Noor, there can't be second stone that belongs to a second owner" way longer than reason may dictate.
  2. Why should I find "another independent institution/organisation" that adds Iran? Please, note that – (1) Iran itself wanted to join SAARC; and (2) another organization's definition is not needed to validate the fact that the UN has a geoscheme.
  3. For "it's the only institution in the world that does so", see the point above. Besides, I believe the UN is not "just another" organization. It's an authority and a highly mainstream authority at that.
  4. "I don't see anything wrong" looks like a refusal to get the point. (inserted) Remember, you removed the very word geoscheme 5 times from the article. Is the right? Is that wrong?
  5. For "that final last definition is a..." see above. It's just formalized.
  6. No. I don't want say it's not true. I want say that it's irrelevant.
  7. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.
You must respect WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. And, you are most welcome to seek opinions of uninvolved editors. Aditya(talkcontribs) 06:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. My analysis:

  1. "Only institution". That's a big claim and needs an explicit citation that states that no other institution includes Iran in SA.
  2. 'only for statistical convenience'. Unnecessary. We don't state the purposes behind other definitions and I'm not sure why this particular definition needs a caveat.
  3. 'most deviating'. That's OR unless a citation is provided.
  4. 'China, Iran, Myanmar'. Has China really done this? If the citation supports the statement then it's probably ok. As is the observer status comment following.
  5. 'geoscheme boundary stuff'. If supported by the citation, it should stay. We don't question our sources.
  6. 'map'. I think the original south asia vegetation map is clearer. The new climate map doesn't make the boundaries (regardless of the fact that they are loose ones) clear.
  7. 'the caveat on definitions'. No. That's OR. Unless there is a citation that talks about how deviating the various definitions are. We can't analyze deviations.

--regentspark (comment) 14:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Aditya Kabir, off-topic, it's funny how you mention the Daria-i-Noor article, considering someone else had to fix it for you because you were constantly coming with completely rubbish souces. (one by an IT expert who wanted to talk about diamonds, and the other one a Bangladeshi funded Wiki). So yeah, if I were to be you, I'd rather stay quiet about that.
- If any person disagrees that Iran is added to South Asia by only one institution in the world, then it's that person who has to prove otherwise here. If you can't find one, but still want to remove it, you're going in against Wiki policy.
- I'd like you to refute the statement that Iran is only added to South Asia by the United Nations (wich you removed). If you can't, you're once again proving your WP:JDL.
- If something is not true, it's also not verifiable. You can't find another independant institution or organisation that adds Iran. (if you can, please show us, and I will definetely admit that I'm wrong) You just can't therefore, the statement that Iran is only added to South Asia by the UN (as organisation) is not incorrect/non-verifiable. The UN adds Iran to South Asia according certain deparments, and that's verifiable.
- Yeah, logically people add images that represent the commonly used definitions of something. Somewhat difficult to grasp?
- No one ever said the UN is just an organisation, still it's the only organisation.
- I fully respect WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. I'm merely portraying that what is verifiable and/or checkable. Nothing non-factual or non-checkable I added about this version Kabir as of recently reverted [[1]].
- The worldwide commonly used definition of South Asia does not include Iran, however, certain deparments of the definetely UN do. But they are the only one. Even that map in the start of the definitions shows that. (Also added by the UN) All other nations/regions (Tibet, Afghanistan etc) are added by more than one organisation to South Asia, apart from the UN. I know I'm argueing with an user who fall under the WP:JDL, and most definetely hails from South Asia, but the truth is the truth, and it's verifiable. Aditya Kabir removed almost everything without even debunking ONE of the statements he calls PoV, wich, once again shows how biased he is. He likes to spam many WP's, but he can't even debunk one of my statements, and therefore resorts to creating all kinds of weird complot theories. Ah well, people with not much to do often resort to such things. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Really? I remember you trying to prove you vague point using self published sources like Tripod.com, wikis (like the Israeli source), sources that mirror Wikipedia or quote Wikipedia as the source (like the Emporia source and Embee source), or sources that doesn't discuss it at all like Wilfrid Laurier University. And, I also remember Kmzayeem i using History of Koh-i-Noor, Darya-i-Noor, and Taimur's Ruby, The Leisure Hour and Falang, Banglapedia, The Tribune, The Darya-E-Noor Is in the Sonali Bank Vault, Indian Express] and Gemmologia. Which one of them is a Bangladeshi Wiki? Is there any Bangladeshi Wiki anywhere on earth? You don't seem very truthful. Do you? May be your respect for WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV is as true as you claim of a Bangladeshi wiki.
Your rant about the only organization is very difficult to understand. Though 80% of your reply is about an only source, I didn't understand much. For instance UN is NOT the only source. The government of Iran becomes the second source when it applies to join South Asian regional council as a full member (see: here and here). There may be other sources. But, if YOU claim that there is no other source, then YOU have to prove that there is no other source, not me (see: WP:PROVEIT). And, what about you commentary on how the geoscheme is heavily deviating and how it is about statistics only - how does that fit in here? Assert fact, not your opinions. Finally, even if it was the only source, you still don't have a right to put your commentary in the article.
Anyways, you have seen regentspark's comment. Do you need other editors to comment? May be you can find someone who can see some value in your opinionated original research. Until then the consensus is against the edits I fixed. Regards. Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, from my own experience with LouisAragon, I guess he's not competent enough with the policies as I have stated earlier. I would agree to the points made by RegentsPark. I think Aditya has shown enough resilience to cooperate with LouisAragon, if problems persists, I would recommend to report it in WP:ANI.--Zayeem (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
My last comment. Sorry, but someone who is a neutral editor without any agenda doesn't write this: LouisAragon has found a purpose of editing this article. He just doesn't like the fact that the United Nations geoscheme includes Iran as a part of South Asia. He has tried to make that piece of information as invisible as possible in the past. Splitting the definition section and shifting the Iran part lower down the article and reducing the regional country grouping section and shifting it lower down.; It's your subjective opinion, but you try to portray it as a fact, wich shows again how incredibly biased you are, and what kind of agenda you have (here). I have no agenda, and I acknowledge the truth, and the independant sources. (wich are closely linked, but not the same thing)
Going further on the off-topic discussion you started, it's quite funny how you’re actually throwing the fact that it was actually you who gave all those sources (minus the Italian one, and the Taimur's ruby one), on the user Kmzayeem. It was actually you who gave most of those crappy sources. Kmzayeem gave the only trustworthy one (the gemmologia book about gems, the Italian one). And btw, actually, I was the first one to use this source in our argument, neither you or him. ([[2]]) History of Koh-i-Noor, Darya-i-Noor, and Taimur's Ruby,
(An Indian news paper, given by you) The Leisure Hour
(didn’t mention a thing about a Darya-i-noor located currently in South Asia, given by you ) Falang,
(‘’Banglapedia, the national encyclopedia of Bangladesh’’. Banglapedia - the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, an intellectual output of over 1450 scholars, is so far the most comprehensive reference work on Bangladesh from high ancient period to date.‘’Written and created by Bangladeshi and other South Asian writers, given by you, veeery trustworthy, and I hope you realise an online encyclopedia is a Wiki?)Banglapedia
(an Indian newspaper, given by you) The Tribune,
(A book written by some South Asian IT specialist, talking in a story kind-of-way about the diamond, given by you)The Darya-E-Noor Is in the Sonali Bank Vault,
(Another Indian newspaper, given by you)Indian Express]
(Finally an independant trusthworthy source about gems, given by Kmzayeem, who fixed the matter)Gemmologia
Magically and interestingly, all sources you gave seemed to be coming from regional newspapers and an IT specialist talking about gems in his spare time. Portraying it factual, independantly, and trustworthy, yeah right. WP:NEWSORG and WP:RS at it's best. Kmzayeem had to fix it eventually for you. You couldn't do it yourself.
Anyway, I’m not further going to waste my time with some user synonymous with WP:JDL who utterly fails to do that what he so desperately tries to be that what he isn't; namely being a user who actually uses neutral, independant, and reliable sources, and who doesn't (seem to) lie about who used wich, or what sources, in order to favour his own portrayal of the story in another topic. Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I will never understand this kind of reasoning - (1) a UN regional grouping is only a deviation; or (2) all South Asian sources are crap; or (3) all online encyclopedias are wikis. Lucky that Wikipedia endorses none of these strange perspectives. Aditya(talkcontribs) 04:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)