Talk:South Asia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

misleading maps

the article in the beginning has a map that includes not merely south asia but west asia / middle east as well why is it so? UN may include it but is that a sufficient reason?

Can we get the map re-coloured at least? Leave Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives (if it were visible), Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka dark green. Then another colour for Afghanistan, Burma/Myanmar and possibly Tibet. Iran just seems weird there. Besides a couple hardcore Islamic idealogue-types, I've never met any South Asians or anyone engaged in the academic study of the region who would consider it part of South Asia. Leaving it grey would be best, but if we're going to include it, colour it yellow or something and indicate that it's only there per the UN definition. 70.50.201.127 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Kashmir as a separate entity Disputed

I would favor not to include Kashmir as a seperate entity due to the disputed nature. Politically it not recognised by any nation as a seperate entity nor it has itself declared independance. So politically the territory still become the part of nations which occupy it (i.e. India, Pakistan and China)

I've included Kashmir precisely because it is disputed among the three countries; any current political map typically exhibits this and I see little reason to not list it here. I can be compelled otherwise, though. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. since its not a seperate political entity, there is no need to for a separate entry. moreover because a territory is disputed between countries does not mean it gets a separate entry under the category "politically south asia includes". Then u would have to include all the territorial disputes in the list...clearly futile. e.g why not tamil elam as separate from sri lanka, because no other counrty is claiming it a disputed teritory? u see makes no sense.gunslotsofguns 11:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Arguably it is a separate political entity (or plural) within any one of the three states already noted. Also note that the section "includes the following territories", not 'states' or 'countries' which connote nationhood. As its size is not insignificant, most maps depict this but not others noted above. Moreover, China is typically reckoned in Eastern Asia and, thus, Kashmir arguably is in that region too ... which is a main reason for including it. I will revise the note, but see little reason to nix it just yet. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed the region designated as kashmir(aka erstwhile princely state of jammu and kashmir) is disputed territory...but unfortunately you havent gotten my objections.
  1. It is not denoted by anyone as a separate political entity....the international community, un, any other nation state, news organisations you name it.
  2. ALL the rest of the territories are nation states, hence it makes it very incongrous.
  3. The heading to the list says "politicaly south asia includes" - which in itslf is ambiguous, but if you were to take every political division in south asia(states, provinces, union territories)- india has 28, pakistan has 5, etc etc...so you would have to list all of them or none.
  4. the erstwhile princely state of jammu and kashmir which is the disputed area has three sub-divisions- jammu, kashmir and ladakh. it is only a part of ladakh, known as aksai chin which is controlled by china. china has never claimed the whole area of kashmir, their claim as far as the region goes is limited to the territories they already control...its india which disputes that chinese claim.
  5. what any "current political map" shows is the areas currently under control by the three parties..they do not show kashmir as a separate political entilty, because there is none. pakistan administers the upper north-western part of kashmir, india administers south and central part of kashmir, jammu and a chunk of ladakh. pakistan claims the whole region except for a section contiguous to the pakistani part in th north has been ceded to china and aksai chin. india claims the whole region. gunslotsofguns 15:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Terminological dispute

you said that "The term 'South Asia' has thus become the politically correct term of what in times before 1947, the end of the British Raj and the beginning of the First Indo-Pakistani War, was simply known as "India"". That is not true. South asia is all the countries you mentioned as well as afghanistan. Also Nepal was its own country before 1947 and was not called India. So SOUTH asia is a geographical expression..and indian subcontinent is just countries that used to be part of British India. But it is still not a respectful term. however, indian subcontinent is more about the counties that used to be part of India, so Nepal, afghanistan and any other country there that was not a part of india shouldn't be listed. and this is not a discussion really, those are facts. so go ahead and change it.

Where is the editor of this page. you are ignoring these comments which are vaild. you should at least try to answer them. thanks

I feel Pak should better be moved into Middle-east rather than South Asia. It is obvious that Pak is the odd man out in South Asia whereas it gels with Middle-east in all matters comfortably... it is a great country

I would point out that Paks speak urdū-i-mu`allā-kī zabān as their lingua franca, and note that the urdū-i-mu`allā referenced here is the Mu`allā of Shāh Jahān's Urdū, which is the capital of Bhārat Ganarājya today. Also, I would note that most Paks consider themselves desi, as do the people of Bhārat Ganarājya and Bangladesh. Also noting that the style of dress and diet of Pakistan is identical to the adjacent regions of Bhārat Ganarājya, and that the Muhajirs, including Gen. Musharaf are immigrants from Bhārat Ganarājya. Nowithstanding the identity of Muslim culture across from Karāchi to atleast Kolkattā if not all the way across from Baluchistan to Asām, and certainly the full ethnic identity within the Panj-āb region, an ethnicity that encompasses atleast the plurality of Pakistan and the population of three provinces in Bhārat Ganarājya.--Bluethroat 06:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In response to the writer of the first paragraph's statement, Afghanistan was INDEED apart of the region traditionally referred to as India. Ancient Hindu scriptures refer to it as the ancient Indian kingdom of Gandhara, the region was a province of the Mauryan empire, and it was the Hindu Shahi kingdom before the arrival of the Muslim Turks, who kind of politically cut it off from much of the subcontinent, though people from the area ruled parts of India for centuries afterward. During the rise of the Mughal Empire, it was politically reincorporated into the region and remained part of India until Nadir Shah's invasion in the early 18th century. Had the British successfully conquered it, it would have been part of British India too. So, saying it was not part of India is completely wrong.

No mention of SAARC?!—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:47, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


this should be moved to Indian subcontinent. The article itself says that the terms are synonymous, so there is no reason for two separate articles. dab (ᛏ) 10:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


I merged the two articles, since they treat the same region. But I do think South Asia should maybe just be a short disambiguation page, pointing to the political entities, and this article about the geographical region should reside at Indian subcontinent; but I'll await reactions before I do further changes. dab (ᛏ) 13:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Non-indians have objection to the name Indian subcontinent, primarily because there is a country called India in existence and it hardly resembles the India in historical references. So, even for geographical region, South Asia would end up being the "politically correct" terminology. It appears, as time passes, Indian subcontinent will have the choice to struggle to survive as The Subcontinent or slowly fade away. In other words, maintain status quo, in my opinion. -- Urnonav 16:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
properly, there is no country called "India" since 1947. There is the "Republic of India", but that is not identical to "India" as a whole. There is that other part of India who prefers to refer to itself as the "abode of the pure" now, for some reason. And even "Republic of India" is just the English term. "Bhārat Ganarājya" means something like "Bharatian people-rule". Now the Bharats were an obscure Bronze Age tribe of the Punjab, I suppose, and it is most unclear what they have to do with anything. dab (ᛏ) 07:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
There was no bronze-age tribe in Punjab called Bharats. India got its name Bharat from the name of a king called Bharata who was the step brother of Hindu-god Rama. Besides, there is no term called Bharatians, its Bharat-wasis (people who live in the land of Bharata). Thanks --{{IncMan|talk}} 07:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic. But who, do you suppose, were the Bharats of RV 3.53.12, 3.23.2? [1] [2] dab (ᛏ) 09:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I have very little knowledge regarding Indian History. Wish my textbooks had more on the Indian History apart from the Indus Valley and the freedom struggle. Anyway, a tribe called Bharatas might have existed in the Bronze Age, but they have nothing to do with the modern day name Bharat. --{{IncMan|talk}} 16:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I would point out that the Bhārat in the Rāmāyan story is named after the king in the RV, who was the founding leader of the tribe that took his name, and eventually came to rule the entire Vedic Civilization, which then broke up, grew, and expanded demicly bringing their culture to the Southern Part of the Mainland Subcontinent, as well as the Islands associated therewith.--Bluethroat 06:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like to point out that there was no Bharata in Mahabharat. --{{IncMan|talk}} 06:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant Rāmāyan, it's been corrected.--Bluethroat 20:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


I changed the 17th century to 18th century because European powers were first granted zamīn-dār status in the 1700's, which is 18th cen, not 17th cen. --Bluethroat 05:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coolian has just done a rather major edit to nomenclature without discussion; i was about to revert him but guys and girls what do you think? Autumnleaf 14:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Indian Subcontinent = South Asia?

Indian Subcontinent and South Asia are 2 different terms and merging the topics is unjustified. Indian Subontinent is geographical term while South Asia is a political term. I would like to know the opinions of other wikipedians on this topic. --{{IncMan|talk}} 15:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In favor of having a separate article on the Indian Subcontinent

  • --{{IncMan|talk}} 15:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The article itself suggests that there are big differences between the terms. e.g., Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, etc are not a part of the Indian subcontinent. deeptrivia 17:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

definitely it should be two separate things - why should it be done through a US definition of the world? and in the recent years even US has moved India away from west asia aka middle east in its command structure.

Afghanistan?

Is Afghanistan part of the Indian subcontinent? I'm assuming it's not. Well Afghanistan is part of South Asia, so the two definitions don't appear to be the same? AucamanTalk 15:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Afghanistan is neither part of the Indian subcontinent or South Asia. It is a South-West Asian, Middle Eastern country. But the extreme eastern part of Afghanistan is considered as the Indian subcontinent/ South Asia because it used to be part of the Indian kingdom of Ghandara

Afghanistan is neither part of the Indian subcontinent or South Asia. It is a South-West Asian, Middle Eastern country. But the extreme eastern part of Afghanistan is considered as the Indian subcontinent/ South Asia because it used to be part of the Indian kingdom of Ghandara.

Not in favor

Separating the articles would leave the two fairly stub-ish. The article could easily be modified to enumerate the geographic and political duality without splitting it.--Bluethroat 20:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

To be very honest, I think Indian Subcontinent is indeed South Asia. The former name is objectionable to non-Indian South Asians. It seems to imply that all of the subcontinent is India or, in other words, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka are not really countries but just parts of India, which is absolutely preposterous. So, to be politically correct and to avoid confusion among ignorant folks, I prefer South Asia as a terminology. In my opinion, one just has to put a redirect on Indian Subcontinent page to South Asia. However, I'd like to see reasoning for calling one of the terminologies political and the other geographic. Urnonav 21:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Indian Subcontinent is not South Asia. Indian Subcontinent is the land lying south of the Himalayas which has completely different climatic, geological, geographical features from the rest of Asia earning the name Subcontinent. Due to its small size, its called a Subcontinent and not Continent otherwise this region has all chracteristics which a continent has. The region also has a distinct culture and tradition. South Asia, on the other hand, generally refers to nations lying in southern Asia. Now, since most of the Indian Subcontinent lies in southern Asia, that doesnt mean South Asia and Indian Subcontinent are the same. Take the ex of the continent of Australasia. More than 80% of the continent is covered by Australia, now that doesnt mean Australasia = Australia.
Regarding INDIAN Subcontinent, no country has ever expressed its objections against the term. Geographical scholars will always refer to this land as the Indian Subcontinent no matter what nations say.
To end, Indian Subcontinent is a geographical term while South Asia is a political term (though southern Asia is a geographical term). Also, note that while most of Burma lies in the Subcontnent, it is not a part of the South Asian countries. Same goes for Afghanistan. --{{IncMan|talk}} 01:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


I'm not sure why South Asia is a political term. Once again, the clearer distinction seems to be the one between South Asia and SAARC and not the one between South Asia and southern Asia! Now SAARC is a political term.
As for no one else's having an objection, I can certainly see a few people preferring just the use of "the Subcontinent" over "Indian Subcontinent" for reasons mentioned above and in the article itself. Note this line from the article:
Some or all of Afghanistan is sometimes considered part of the subcontinent for historic purposes but shares no cultural, linguistic and climatic ties with the other countries.
Hence, it seems that this article was written considering South Asia as a geophraphic region like the name implies. You also mention "due to its small size, its called a Subcontinent and not Continent". Firstly, I think Europe is smaller than South Asia (the region, just to be clear). You also mention "characteristics which a continent has"; I am not sure what these "characteristics" are. Being of the same climactic belt or having same culture doesn't make a region a continent, if that's what you are hinting. Let's look at North America: how are the culture and climate of the Prairies similar to that of the Mid-West?
However, my opinion after reading your argument is that South Asia is a politically correct non-political term for a geographic region, as it seems to me. So, in my opinion, while a separate article on say "Countries of South Asia" or SAARC is justified, having a separate article for Indian Subcontinent is not.
May be we should wait for a third person's opinion since we seem to have reached deadlock situation with divided opinion?
132.206.67.31 22:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I get your point. South Asia is definitely a geographical term literary. But, actually its not southern Asia. South Asia is a geographical term but at the same time its a political term too. Take the example of Kashmir. It definetely lies in S. Asia. In that case Tibet should be regarded as south asian region too because both Tibet and kashmir lie below more or less the same latitude and hence should be a part of S. Asia. Same goes for Myanamar. Even if we consider South Asia to be geographical term, southern Asia is much bigger than the Indian Subcontinent. Again, just because most of the indian subcontinent lies in southern asia, it doesnt mean both are the same.
Why do people always forget that western Russia is also a part of europe. Western Russia is much bigger than India and then add all other European nations, now isnt Europe big?. The questions you raised just makes me laugh. Think u should go for geography classes. Mongolia has completely different cliamtic conditions from Kuwait and yet they both lie in the same continent. But there is no such geographical barrier between them. Its a 'combination' of all factors like: climate, culture, human race, geology, geography, size of land, tectonic plates and geographical barriers. Heard about continental drifts?
People call the Indian Subcontinent, subcontinent because its the only one of its kind. By saying Subcontinent, Im actually refering to the Indian subcontinent. Wat about the INDIAN ocean? Imagine Canada objecting the usage of the term North America or New Zealand objecting the usage of term Australasia. --{{IncMan|talk}} 03:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure when I said something so hilarious that you that to send me for geography lessons, especially when at least in my opinion I am doing something slightly more worthwhile. Let's go up and read: I never said climate makes different places fall in the same continent - in fact I said that's NOT what makes places fall in the same continents. Now what you said was:
Due to its small size, its called a Subcontinent and not Continent otherwise this region has all chracteristics which a continent has. The region also has a distinct culture and tradition.
Please avoid drifting off the main point. Why Canadians should object to the term North America when there's no country in the World with names like "North", "America" or "North America" or why New Zealanders would object to Australasia, is not obvious to me? I don't see why it's even part of this discussion. As far as the article on South Asia is concerned it seems to be depicting exactly the same region that you are calling Indian Subcontinent. Like I said before, we will need a third person's opinion on this if not a voting. Urnonav 21:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Precisely, there is no country called the Indian Subcontinent also. So why should some object the usage of the term. Why should Bangladeshis object the term is not obvious to me. Yup, think we do need a 3rd person's opinion on this issue as this discussion is going nowhere. I dont find anything wrong in what i wrote. The Indian Subcontinent has all the characteristics which a continent has but due its relatively smaller size its called a subcontinent. Fine I am wrong. You tell me why is this region called a subcontinent and not a continent? --{{IncMan|talk}} 02:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The term Indian Subcontinent is archaic and was a British interpretation of the region. It doesn't make any sense in this article because it's not all encompassing. If that were the case then one-third of Pakistan doesn't apply since it has Central Asian ties and is connected with the Iranian plateau. Also why are Iran and Afghanistan on here? Iran is in the Middle East, and Afghanistan is clearly Central Asian, at least ethnically. As to whoever said that Pakistan ought to be part of the Middle East, that doesn't have any merit. Karmapaymentplan 06:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, isn't there a country called India? There are articles on Wikipedia itself describing why and how continents were defined. So I would rather avoid redundancy. And until we find a 3rd person, I'll refrain from this discussion for the time being. Urnonav 17:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are countries called United States of America (refering N. America) and Australia (refering Australasia) too. Frankly, I dont know why am I wasting my time and energy arguing with you. --{{IncMan|talk}} 19:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I vote against the creation of a new article on the Indian Subcontinent because doing so will put countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan in the same category as that of India. --Grubb 23:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

south asian celebrities?

I selfishly dropped in here to enquire whether there was any support for creating a universal page or category for South Asian celebrities or entertainers. Would include sports people, actors, musicians, writers and others who are so notable that the media cover them. Autumnleaf 23:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

My two bits

Bharat is not named after the brother of Rama, but for an earlier, more hoary or pre-historic Aryan king, ruler of an eponymous tribe and dynasty. I believe that Kalidasa's play Shakuntala describes this same person "Bharatha". Am I wrong?

The English language is based, in its present, modern form, on Latin and Latin grammatical usages. Native usages for Asiatic peoples is to use adjective name forms ending with a plain "i", but proper English usage ends the name forms with the suffixes "ian", "ite", "ese", etc. The forms, therefore, such as "Bharati" or "Israeli" are deplorable; the correct forms should be "Bharatian" and either "Israelite" or "Israelian". These deplorable forms are now common usage; however, I believe that every effort should be made towards orthography.

The term "South Asia" is preferable to the term "Indian Subcontinent" for the precise reason that using the latter would provide grist to the imperialist ambitions of the Indians and Indianists, noxious enough as that is, and therefore not acceptable to people who either possess or have an ambition to possess or belong to states or territories independent of Bharat and its cloying Narcissism. Historically, South Asia was many several states that were integrated by the English as part of their empire-building, and there is nothing intrinsic to the native culture(s) of the region that militates its integration as a unitary state unlike China.

The nations of Jammu & Kashmir (there are more than three separate ethnic groups: Kashir, Dogra, Ladakhian, Shina, Hindko, Dardian, etc.) largely, but not exclusively, seek independence from both Bharat and Pakistan, which both seek to deny these aspirations. Bharat claims that the entire territory belongs to it, and that Pakistan is in illegal occupation of what it calls Pak-Occupied Kashmir since 1947; Pakistan knows these areas as three distinct ones: the unrecognized "independent" puppet state of Azad Kashmir, the Northern Areas which it has annexed after some form of a plebiscite in 1947, and the Trans-Karakorum Tract, which it gifted to China.

On the other hand, Goa, my homeland, is a territory under the illegal and criminal occupation of Bharat since 1954 (Dadra & Nagar-Aveli) and 1961 (remainder). Bharat cannot both have its cake and eat it too; if Pakistan's actions in Kashmir are illegal and immoral, then, by the same principles, Bharat's, vis-a-vis Goa, are more so. But if Bharat's actions against Goa are moral and just, then Pakistan's actions in Kashmir are more so, and Bharat has no moral case against Pakistan; let it therefore shut up and quit its hypocrisies!

However, I have no illusions that the gutless cowards and bullies of Mahaan Hindoostan will ever act in accordance with principles of morality unless compelled to by external force majeure and against its own inclinations.

Goa is not Bharat's sole victim; Sikkim, the Khasi states, and other states too have been similarly victimized. I pray for that the day when the obnoxious company of Bharat that it forces upon us is speedily ended. I have confidence in my God, that He will punish evildoers and, in His own time, bring them to a swift and salutory end.

(See also: The Goa Question)


[Detoxified Goan] WikiSceptic 16:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

To the person above, amen. Karmapaymentplan 06:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are several people on planet Earth with the name Bharat or Bharata. Bharat, the local name of India, however was derived from King Bharata in Ramayana. Indian imperialism? If India had imperialistic ambitions countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Maldives wouldnt be independent. During Operation Cactus in the 1980s India could have easily occupied Maldives and the world wouldn't have uttered a word. Every country has some territorial ambitions but calling them imperialistic ambitions... India is a lot better compared to other countries in that respect.
What I conclude from your comment above is that you prefer that Goa remained under the occupation of Portugal which somehow escapes the criticism of being called an imperialistic country. According to me Goa is a lot more independent than what it was under Portugal. The state government of Goa is selected by the people of Goa.. many people don't enjoy that privilege which Goans have --Deepak|वार्ता 17:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I studied in an Indian-run school in Bombay that followed the syllabus as set by the Maharashtra State Board of Higher Education, and according to the textbooks as approved by it, Bharat is named, not for the Ramayana person, but for the earlier one. If you therefore have an argument about that, you must first prefer an argument with the Government of Maharashtra and that Board, a statutory body.
  • The USA and England, for example, have had imperial ambitions against several lands; USA occupied and annexed Texas and a great part of Mexico in 1824-1848 (half or so, see Aztlan. Other uses), but, just as Bharat has not annexed every of its neighbors, so too has the USA not annexed each and every of its neighbors: Is that proof that the USA is innocent? Again, for example, England occupied "British Honduras" from Guatemala and Mexico, and "Mosquitoland" from Honduras and Nicaragua; it surrendered "Mosquitoland", but "British Honduras" is now the "Republic of Belize"; therefore, by your rules, England, since it took only part or some lands, and not all, it is innocent, right?
  • Sikkim was annexed and is occupied; Nepal was sought to be annexed, specially by Lohia, the same communist thug that mucked around with Goa, but that project was abandoned in the face of fierce opposition on the part of the Nepalese peoples; Bhutan is a puppet and one without even the self respect to protest Bharat textbooks routinely depicting it within the boundaries of Bharat! Go tell your fairytales to someone else!
  • Quite generous of Bharat to have come to the aid of a despot and dictator who has denied the Maldives any diversity of political thought. Besides, if Bharat did not annex East Pakistan, simply because it did not want to dilute its Hindu majority, has it struck you that while England, USA and other Indian Ocean naval powers would not have interfered with its restoration of the ousted president, any attempt at annexation would have drawn them in fast and furious? Do you live in dreamland, like nearly about every other Bharatiya I have met?
  • Bharat's imperialism may be "better" from Bharat's viewpoint, but, as the people of Kashmir and Nagalim demonstrate, to cite but two instances, its victims are rather ungrateful towards Bharat's raping thugs goons imperialists and colonists!
  • Goans had urgently requested Albuquerque to liberate it from Adilshah, and after that, excepting small and unrepresentative groups of malcontents, it has by accretion, grown to become an integral part of Portugal. Goans were and are free and equal citizens of Portugal, and never suffered racialism that the English, influenced by Calvinist Protestantism, exhibited towards their portions of the East Indies.
  • We, the Goans, never authorized or sought any intervention by Bharat; we never were afforded a plebiscite, but were invaded and blasely "annexed"; it was criminal and it remains criminal.
  • I have already ansered your hypocrisy, so please don't repeat talk of "Democracy" as any kind of proof; there is "democracy" in Azad Kashmir, but Bharat pretends that it is under the illegal occupation of Pakistan, and that it "remains" an integral part of Bharat. As I have already said, you cannot have two standards, you cannot have your cake and eat it too! Get real, man! Can the hypocrisy, and try and debate like a man!
  • Goa, under the occupation, has gone from bad to worse. Its economy has worsened; its people are swamped by Bharatiya colonists, who outnumber them, and Goans, who under Goan and Portuguese law, retain citizenship and electoral rights even when not resident, are denied those rights by Bharat, which only permits "residents" so that the "electorate" is dominated by Bharatiyas. The list of abuses is too long to be listed here.
WikiSceptic 14:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
First of all, please refrain from personal attacks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a blog or a forum site. Wonder why you prefer to use Talk:South Asia instead of Talk:Goa or Talk:India to discuss the issue. Also note that I am not a scholar of Indian foreign policy or Goan history and hence for me to argue with you is pointless. If you wish to start an anti-Indian campaign, please Wikipedia is not the place for all this. I see this discussion going nowhere --Deepak|वार्ता 15:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Why can't we have two separate article?

See Middle East and Southwest Asia. The two terms refer to more or less the same region but we have two separate articles on them. I am wondering why can't we have two articles on Indian subcontinent and South Asia? --Spartian 23:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is little need to fork this article but perhaps more of a need to enhance or restructure it: this is analogous to forkng East Europe and Eastern Europe or any number of geographic articles. Of course, there are exceptions – South Africa/Southern Africa – but this is arguably not one of them. If this article is to concern the Indian subcontinent, which is not fully synonymous with South/ern Asia, it should be entitled so. Before doing so again, please cite sources to justify a fork. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, as you can see the whole South Asia and Southern Asia thing has made the article soo complicated. Just read the article. Initially it says landmass lying south of the Himalayas. Then it talks about all of Asia lying south of the Soviet Union and then Iran?! How confusing!! We got to reach a version which describes all the meanings of South/Southern Asia in a straight forward manner. The best solution in my eyes is to create a separate article on Indian subcontinent and merge South/Southern Asia. --Spartian 19:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Nomenclature section, you reverted my edit to a version which had poor sentence formation and lacked factual accuracy. Its about time you justified your edits --Spartian 20:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As above, I disagree with forking the articles South/ern Asia into two ... but I do support creating one about the Indian subcontinent, which was somewhat unclear given recent acts at Southern Asia. (Also forgive my prior ambiguity.) Given the currently unified (and admittedly loaded) article and recent forks, my additions and defs (more to follow) are derived directly from numerous dictionaries and compendiums dealing with the topic (and will add references); I'm unsure anything else contributed recently has been. And the nomenclature section remains, regrettably, poorly structured.
My edits aren't yet complete and regret if others were inadvertently nixed. However, none are actually sourced. Shortly, I will again peruse and copyedit the article and nix anything that isn't properly sourced. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
My knowledge regarding the history of the term South Asia is limited. But I doubt the accuracy of the nomenclature section. If you can provide references, that would be great! Please note, that I have no problems with your recent edits. Also, User:Dbachmann merged the articles on Indian subcontinent and South Asia. Given the recent dispute over the content of the concerned article, I think creating an article on Indian subcontinent is justified. --Spartian 22:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Great; I agree with the need for two articles and sources; recent edits have been more copyedits than anything. I'll delve into the terminology some more and reference/prune shortly; prior to that, though, I think we should start moving content (namely regarding geography/topography) to Indian subcontinent; retain Southern Asia as merely a redirect to South Asia (which should focus more on geopolitics and demography). And, as we know, decisions once made – particularly some eight months ago – can be reversed ... and there's reason enough to re-split as proposed. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Perfect! --Spartian 23:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I tried my best to describe the negative aspects of merging Indian subcontinent with South Asia but no one listened. I'm glad we have reached consensus on demerging the article. --Deepak|वार्ता 01:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes! Please head on over to each and copyedit as necessary ... given the back-and forthing involved, I might have crossed wires or mistyped/duplicated text. Shortly, I'll again peruse both articles, source edits, and prune as needed. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hindi Script

South Asia includes at lest 7 countries and only one or two of them use Hindi (dewangari) script. Therefore, I think Hindi script is not relevent and should be removed. India has no claim on all seven countries. Szhaider 15:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Moreover South Asia is English terminology and it doesn't need to be translated/transliterated into any other language. Therefore, I am going to remove Hindi script. Szhaider 18:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. HawkerTyphoon 18:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tibet

South Asia 101 (About.Com) [[3]http://goasia.about.com/cs/azsiteindex/a/sasia101.htm]]

Center for South Asian Studies. University of California, Berkeley [[4]

Tibet Environmental Watch [[5]http://www.tew.org/archived/himal.part1.html]]

Uma Krishnaswami: South Asia in Children's Literature [[6]]

Remove Afghanistan and iran from this Page

Afghanistan and Iran needs to be moved from this article as a person from Afghanistan I would be deeply offended if some one reffered my country or even iran to the INDIAN sub continent...The people of Afghanistan and Iran have nothing in common with the peoples of South Asia which are from indian origin...we are taking about apperance wise!, language, culture, and mainly religion. Afghanistan ,Tajikistan,and Iran are the same people but they again do NOT! have anything in common with Indians,pakis,and the rest of the peoples in the South asia...thats why south asian people often reffer them selves as desi...which can not be used on middle-eastern people (arabs and persian which are iranis and afghans)...so remove afghanistan and iran from this equation plzzzz..before some uneducated person reffers to iranian and afghan peoples as indian..which is totaly offensive..(even though some South asian people would love to be associated with Iranian and Afghans becuase of Iranian and Afghans are very nice looking..NO OFFENCE its just true..and those people need a reality check..becuase there totaly different from iranis and afghans..it just the plain truth and most people who know about these people know the differences)

I totally agree. Afghanistan and Iran are not part of South Asia and have nothing in common with South Asians. From my experience, what you said about Indians wanting to be associated with the Middle East is true too.


What! Iran and Afghanistan

Anyone who refers Iran and Afghanistan part of the indian empire or Indian land mass has completely gone MADD!. Afghanistan's southern region was part of an indian empire But! the people who live today in modern day Afghanistan were not living in the country at the time of these so called quick, weak, and corrupt empires that india had during its golden days of hinduisim were short lived becuase of the persian empire and the rise of Islam. Persians ones from modern day Iran and Afghanistan invaded and occupied much of southern Afghanistan which the weakend indian armies could never recapture the lost territories which were today are called Kandahar, ghazni, jalalabad, and parts of southern kabul. The rest of the country never belonged to any indian empire EVER!. So Afghanistan was a major part of the persian empire and never to any indian empire and its people living today are 98% of persian ethnicity who came after the fall of the persian empire. These are all facts anyone who dissagrees has no idea in persian empire history and the histories of afghanistan and iran, they should look up who nadir shah , ahmad shah durrani , and one person almost every early centrury historian knows is Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni who invaded india and brought a much more islamic influence to india and persian influence to northern india.(I know what im taking about if anyone disagrees just becuase thier in some fantasy world and wishes they can be Afghan or Irani)..look up the history persian empire


(I do not know about indians but as far as pakistanis are concerned we damm care about middle east and especially Iran. I would like the dirt of Iran definately thrown from the south asian map. As for as Afghanistan is concerned it is partly central asian and partly south asian. Idiot Iranis or farsiwan dogs of Afghanistan will not be allowed to dictate on the matters of afghanistan. Afghanistan is pashtun country impured by farsiwans. DNA tests of pakistani males have shown that pashtuns are the sons of the soil of north western south asia they are high in R1a1-M17 lineage that is also dominant male genetic lineage of their neighbouring pakistani ethnical groups namely kashmiris,punjabis,sindis Balochi and nordic looking northern pakistanis. Our Y chromosome DNA test has shown we are paternally descended from the same R1a1-M17 lineages which are also prevalent in eastern european countries namely Russia,Ukrain , Poland etc. On the other hand the vast majority of persian men of Iran are genetically related to afro asiatic speakers of middle east and these self made aryans have nothing in common with afghan , pakistan or eastern european population which are true aryans reflected by their common R1a1-M17 genetic male lineage. Darius might have been aryan but people who were sorrouding him were definately afro asiatics. Afghanistan is associated with south asia because of common history otherwise geographically it is part of central asia and has nothing to do with middle east surely. The Irani idiots and farsiwan dogs of afghanistan seem to be active on every stuff related to Afghanistan. I do not know why they want to dictate the matters of pashtun country Afghanistan.)



Center for South Asia Outreach, University of Wisconsin, Madison [[7]] another university claiming Tibet to be South Asian

South Asia Language Resource Center; The University of Chicage [[8]http://salrc.uchicago.edu/workshops/summer.shtml]]

Hmm... more universities declaring Tibet as South Asian

Address to the World parliamentarians Convention on Tibet by His Holiness the Dalai Lama (on the TIBETAN Exile Government website) [[19]http://www.tibet.com/Wpct/dl_wpct.html]]

Tibet is part of South Asia Thegreyanomaly 01:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

South Asia includes Tibet. Its just with problems with its current status. StormTrooper12 05:00, 21 December 2006

relevance ? ethnicity

"During 1990-2003, Pakistan continued to sustain its lead as the most urbanised nation in South Asia with 34% city dwellers" IMHO, not the right place to quote this ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.23.193.210 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Usage/History

Can someone write more about the history of the term "south asia" if they know it? Many Indian Students Associations are debating becoming South Asian Students Associations in America, and one of the main arguements against it is that the term "south asia" is a new-age western construct, and doesn't really mean much. i'm not getting very much into detail with it here, and maybe this is incorrect, but i would like to know more about the history of the term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.252.188.235 (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Well first of all less interest is given about "Sri Lanka" here. As a whole south asia is only about India here. Another thing is that in the picture showing different languages. "Sri Lanka" is mis-spelled in Sinhala.

When it comes to history Sri Lanka have a written record of over 2500 years in a book called "Mahavansa" - The Great Lineage. Things like that must be taken into account.

map of languages

there is a need to change the language of pondicheri to Tamil when it is written near Tamil Nadu and malayalam if it is written in Kerala - mahe section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamg (talk • contribs) 04:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

China?!

Ok.. even a kid in 3rd grade knows that China lies in East Asia and not in South Asia. For those who didn't attend school, look at the map of Asia and tell me whether China lies in East or South Asia? I am changing the South Asia map for the sake of common-sense. --Incman|वार्ता 17:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Tibet?

I've never heard that Tibet forms part of S. Asia, it is blatantly Indo-centric POV. - 218.102.23.91 14:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Citation" tag added. At least we need an authoritative source.(e.g., geographic societies...)--210.0.204.29 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
See Tibet segment below in this topic Thegreyanomaly 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the Snow lion flag as it no longer represents Tibet(1951-present), I even doubt it had ever officially represent Tibet from 1912-1951. BTW, quoting sources from TGIE would create nothing but POV. Kindly keep the article neutral--210.0.204.29 09:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
For NPOV, I once again removed the flag, its status as the national flag, before and after 1951, is disputed.--219.79.164.95 14:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Headline text

does any1 no the most denly populated continent plz???????????????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.193.73.240 (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Tibet Segment in Discussion as I created it

Apparently a few people butchered my evidence of Tibet being South Asian Thegreyanomaly 01:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Tibet

South Asia 101 (About.Com) [[20]http://goasia.about.com/cs/azsiteindex/a/sasia101.htm]]

Center for South Asian Studies. University of California, Berkeley [[21]

Tibet Environmental Watch [[22]http://www.tew.org/archived/himal.part1.html]]

Uma Krishnaswami: South Asia in Children's Literature [[23]]

Center for South Asia Outreach, University of Wisconsin, Madison [[24]] another university claiming Tibet to be South Asian

South Asia Language Resource Center; The University of Chicage [[25]http://salrc.uchicago.edu/workshops/summer.shtml]]

Hmm... more universities declaring Tibet as South Asian

Address to the World parliamentarians Convention on Tibet by His Holiness the Dalai Lama (on the TIBETAN Exile Government website) [[36]http://www.tibet.com/Wpct/dl_wpct.html]]

Tibet is part of South Asia Thegreyanomaly 01:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Greater" South Asia?

Please stop pushing such kind of crappy POV as individual editors are going far beyond the original concept on Indian subcontinent. Once again, a country's geographic location has nothing to do with how its main ethnic group comes from. It is COMMON KNOWLEDGE. 218.102.23.90 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You lack sources for your opinion. Before claims that it is more often considered PRC you must provide reliable, academic sources, until then it is not a valid POV. Thegreyanomaly 06:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting semi-protection for this page Thegreyanomaly 06:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Regarding semiprotection. Please feel free! :-) --218.102.23.94 06:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the History of Tibet article. Tibet was a free country until it was annexed in 1951 under the Seventeen Point Agreement. Also you must provide your source of your reference in the form of an url or book bibliography or etc. BTW. I have filed a page protection request on this page. If it goes through anyone lacking an account or having account of less than four days of age will not be able to edit. Also if you revert my last revert you will be in violation of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. You revert, I report. Thegreyanomaly 06:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Hyprocrite! So where the hell is your reference for Tibet as free country then? pls read Wikipedia guidelines which regulate that [other] wiki-articles are not considered as "references"
In 1914, the Tibetans in Simla voluntarily signed the Convention which states[37]:
"Article 2. The Governments of Great Britain and China recognizing that Tibet is under the suzerainty of China"
"It is understood by the High Contracting Parties that Tibet forms part of Chinese territory...After the selection and installation of the Dalai Lama by the Tibetan Government, the latter will notify the installation to the Chinese Government whose representative at Lhasa will then formally communicate to His Holiness the titles consistent with his dignity, which have been conferred by the Chinese Government. "
In 1934, the Tibetan government in Lhasa make a ten-point statement on their identity:
"In dealing with external affair, Tibet shall remain an integral part of the territory of China."[Goldstein, M.C., "History of Modern Tibet", p239; India Office Records, IOR, L/PS/12/4175]
Tibet was autonomous, but not independent. I provided the UN subregion-classification page and you called that "lack of sources", "Chinese POV"?
FYI, all South Asian countries, including the Republic of India, are members of the UN. - 218.102.23.91 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't referencing the History of Tibet article entirely. I was just requesting you read it. Also please learn the defintion of suzerainty. China was a suzerain, a nation that controls another nation in international affairs but allows it domestic sovereignty. That is all. Also please read what you cite

Article 2

. Tibet CANNOT be annexed. Unannexed land is not a part of a country

Thegreyanomaly 07:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)



Do some History 101, read the Simla document which was written in simple english:

  • "Tibet forms part of Chinese territory"(Art 2. Appendix)

It means Tibet was already part of the Chinese dominion.

  • "The Government of China engages not to convert Tibet into a Chinese province"

It doens't say that Tibet cannot be annexed. Since at least 1951, Beijing has never converted Tibet (currently a TAR) into a province like Anhui, Guangdong, Hunan. She keeps her promise.

Or you got problems in reading legal document?--218.102.23.117 07:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops I read to fast and saw the word annex in the wrong place. Tibet was self-ruling from Simla until 1951. It was suzerainty. Only foreign affairs were affected. Tibet's domestic government remained in place from then to then. Also, think about what you're saying in an international aspect. Example: Puerto Rico is a US territory, even though its a US territory it is still a Caribbean state and Puerto Ricans are still not Americans. If one country is territory of another it does not mean the people are the same Also, try to find more references. Your edit claimed "Mainly considered as part of East Asia," yet most of the time people only hear about Tibet as Central and/or South Asia Thegreyanomaly 07:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


No offense, but dont you think its too late to say "Oops" as you already lost your credibility? The Tibetan 10-point statement of 1934 already uses the word Integral, it means it is already listed as the main body of China, like the 50 states of the US. 17 yrs later, the Seventeen points, even though with harsh terms, which the Kashag Government ratified few month after the signing in Beijing, clearly states that:
"the Tibetan nationality is one of the nationalities with a long history within the boundaries of China"
Third-party maps published in the Qing and KMT eras also show Tibet as formally a part of China. Obviously the Puerto Rico analogy doesn't work:
1908,1923,19331933,1935,1942.
FYI, on the suzerainty-sovereignty issue please take a look at Gregory Clark, "In Fear of China"'s note on the Tibet case:
(1) Tibet, although enjoying independence at certain periods of its history, had never been recognised by any single foreign power as an independent state. The closest it has ever come to such recognition was the British formula of 1943: suzerainty, combined with autonomy and the right to enter into diplomatic relations.
(2) It is difficult to make a case for rejection of Chinese rights in Tibet on the ground that a distinction exists between the concepts of "suzerainty" and "sovereignty". If an area of territory is not recognised as an independent entity, then regardless of how its status is described -- colony, protectorate, vassal state, autonomous region -- some form of external control is implied. Once the principle of Chinese control over Tibet is admitted, the Chinese have the right in international practice to stipulate what form their relationship with Tibet should take.
(3) Even if the British position on Tibet's right to diplomatic relations is accepted -- and there is no reason why the Chinese should accept it -- this does not necessarily amount to reconition of Tibet's de facto independence, as is sometimes claimed. The various republics of the U.S.S.R. have in theory the same right, a right which was given some practical content in 1945 by the separate representation of the Ukrainian and Byelorussian Republics in the United Nations.
(4) Finally, once the principle of Chinese control over Tibet is admitted, then the use of force by the Chinese within the boundaries of Tibet cannot be considered illegal.
Sovereignty (i.e. final say on both external and internal affairs) over Tibet was internationally (re)affirmed in 1906 when the British monarch, "Emperor of India", signed a six-article treaty with the Chinese counterpart. The treaty text is considered as a recognition of Chinese sovereignty over the region. [Smith, Warren, Tibetan Nation, p162]. Earlier sources? Kindly read the 29-article Imperial Ordinance promulgated in the year of 1792 by which the Qing Central authorities regulated the internal administration of the Tibet locality.
Simply "suzerainty"? Are you sure?
-218.102.23.90 08:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of any of this, please? The fact that Tibet was an independent country before 1951 is irrelevant to the question of whether it is in South Asia.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Good question. But it seems that someone gave us weird impression that Tibet is not part of East Asia just becasue she was/is "a free country" :-)

Nevertheless, as it is a geopolitical concept, mentioning politics is not totally off-topic. 218.102.23.126 15:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Prior to this conversation, I would have thought that it was clear that Tibet is located in Central Asia. However, these concepts are so vague that I doubt it will be possible to establish them with much clarity.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for a minor modification for Tibet's geography. Tibet is Central Asia geographically and not East Asian

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117343/Tibet Britannica]:

Tibetan Bod, in full Tibet Autonomous Region, Chinese (Wade-Giles) Hsi-tsang Tzu-chih-ch'ü, (Pinyin) Xizang Zizhiqu historic region and autonomous region of China that is often called “the roof of the world.” It occupies about 471,700 square miles (1,221,600 square kilometres) of the plateaus and mountains of Central Asia, including Mount Everest (Chu-mu-lang-ma Feng). It is bordered by the Chinese provinces of Tsinghai to the northeast, Szechwan to the east, and Yunnan to the southeast; Myanmar (Burma), India, …

the Tibetan Plateau is listed as East Asia. I have a neutral academic source stating otherwise. I now understand that the Tibetan Plateau is geographically Central Asia, politically under Chinese rule, but culturally South Asia. To add to my references that claim Tibet South Asian, I have a source from UPenn. [[38]]. The TAR is consider by UPenn, a premiere American university. Thegreyanomaly 08:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

edits

The whole article is talking about the CURRENT GEOPOLITICIAL situation, I don't see there is any problem removing the word "now" and adding "culturally"

And please also note that as there is still no consensus on Talk:Tibet about TIB's status as geopolitically part of South Asia, I will formally remove the whole Tibet entry(or move it to "References") unless there is any authoritative source added in the near future proving the region as geopolitically part of the subcontinent. -219.73.86.204 12:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Five months already! So, no geopolitical sources provided? MainBody 05:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Neither was Hainan always part of PRC nor Goa, Daman, and Diu part of ROI. It's weird if I say "Goa (now part of ROI)" or "Hainan (now part of PRC)". Kindly note that the seventeen-point agreement, ratified by the Kashag few months after its signing, already states that Tibet "is one of the nationalities with a long history within the boundaries of China". With the Succession of states principle, like it or not, international recognition of Tibet's status as de jure part of the Chinese state _predates_ the establishment of the Communist/PRC government. (see also Testimony by U.S. State Dept, Washington, 1995 and Wright, Quincy; Lauterpacht, Hersh; Borchard, Edwin M.; Morrison, Phoebe, "Legal Problems in the Far Eastern Conflict", London, 1941) - 210.0.204.29 03:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

atleast change the first map

if the writers of this article are claiming that Iran and Afghanistan are part of south Asia then please replace the map that is centered over India. I also recommend placing Iran with such countries as Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

South Asia and Southern Asia

These are two different terms and refer to two different things. So we should have two articles for each term. -- Behnam 01:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

South Asia and Southern Asia appear to be two different concepts. Southern Asia appears to be just a United Nations designation. South Asia, on the other hand, is the region primarily influenced by Indic civilization minus the two Pakistans, but they were originally also Indic. Iran hasn't been influenced by Indic culture, so it is commonly not considered part of South Asia. I favor User:Beh-nam's version which does not equate the two.----DarkTea© 03:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over the definition

Iran and India share the Parsi/Zoroastrian religion (as attributed to the exodus of Persians into India), however India shares religions from many cultures throughout the world.

Otherwise, Iran and India are linguistically tied in the Indo-Iranian line of Indo-European languages. This may be where the UN ties the countries into one larger region.

Though, of course, most people don't think much further west than Pakistan when it comes to the idea of South Asia. And as far east as Myanmar (Burma) perhaps can be justified because of the occupation of both regions by the British Raj.

So historically and linguistically there are explanations for inclusion of these areas into the concept of South Asia.

And reading the discussion notes above and the usage of the phrase "Indian origin", what exactly does this mean? Indigenous to the area that became India? Prior to the Aryan-Invasion or are we to include those peoples from Central Asia that inhabited the region and brought their religion (which became Hinduism) with them. Is that what is meant by "Indian origin"? A very confusing term historically.

I might add that the points of view expressed in these discussions lack any scholarly awareness and are outright ignorant of cultural facts about the relationship of Indians to the peoples that came to India from the northwest (i.e. Central Asia). It is a shame to have to go through these discussions and find such mindless statements that are never in check by anyone of any acceptably authoritative position of mediation.

I also took it upon myself to remove the map of South Asia from the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook. Anyone that wants to undo this action may do so, but as is Wikipedia editing suggestions, "be bold" entails getting rid of objectionable material. It was a lousy "cropped" map of Asia to begin with, perhaps someone could find a more suitable map to use for the article.

Galo1969X 03:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop pushing wellknown POV of the def. of South Asia

No offense, for many months I have seen individual editor[s] try their best pushing and pushing and pushing the POV on Tibet forming part of the subcontinent. I see their intention of doing so.

Please give us some universally-accepted GEOPOLITICAL source(as mentioned in the Introduction part), there is no use quoting "university department/"cultural center" viewpoints even if you have ten or hundreds or thousands, as these are all not qualified per Wikipedia's intructions for citing sources!

Being culturally influenced by S. Asia doesnt make a place "part of S. Asia". We come to wikipedia for knowledges instead of ultranationalist propaganda. Be encyclopedic! Let's return to *geopolitical* perspectives. - 210.0.212.59 (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Universities are scholarly sources. I have cited far more than a few universities that consider Tibet South Asian. Also South Asia is not defined by the geological borders of the subcontinent. There is no universal definition known, and because of how well cited the Tibet addition is, removing it without discussion is vandalism. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Nonsense. you must go back to Talk:South Asia#edits and Talk:Tibet/Archive_5#South_Asia to convince other editors first. You are the one who are pushing POV with no Talk-page consensus. It is a fact!

A university department is university department, it means they, as only a scholarly institutions, gain no universally accepted conslusion. It means we DONT CARE even if you can quoted THOURSANDS of Univ. homepages. Britannica.com, with high-quality editors, is good source with authority on the topic.

MOST IMPORTANT: if you think these kind of "citation" worth mentioning, just do it in the Reference part.

We are talking about Geopolitics, please dont draw attention away. Language Center? Cultural Center? Come on!

--210.0.212.59 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, let us stop this silly edit war! "South Asia" and "Central Asia" are really just concepts constructed by humans to suit their needs. Geologically speaking, Tibet is certainly NOT part of "South Asia" but of "Central Asia". Politically it is now part of "East Asia". Religiously it is probably best described as a mix of "South Asian" (Buddhist), "Central Asian" (Bon and shamanism) and "East Asian" (Confucianism and Taoism) and, even "West Asian" (Nestorian) traditions. Tibet is frequently included in the South Asian departments of universities because that is what they have funding for - and many of scholars are particularly interested in Tibetan Buddhism which, of course, does have roots in India.
Just because some university includes Tibet as part of its "South Asian" program probably only indicates that that was the most appropriate faculty or department they had to include Tibetan studies under. This is indicative only of university politics and finances - nothing more.
Now, yesterday I only had a chance to very briefly look - as I am getting ready to leave on a big trip the day after tomorrow - at a couple of the references given in support of the Tibet-is-part-of-South Asia argument and found one of them to be totally wrong (i.e. the reference to Encyclopeadia Britannica actually says Tibet is part of Central Asia - not South Asia as claimed), and the reference to the University of Wisconsin-Madison only gives a rough map with a dotted green line indicating it might be considered part of South Asia.
Today I have had a further look at a few of the references given and find the Department of South Asian Studies at the University of Pennsylvania does not seem to even mention Tibet at all, and neither did the University of Washington site given as a "reference" include Tibet as part of "South Asia". I can't be bothered checking further as I am very busy - but this should be enough to show there was, apparently, some dishonesty happening here in trying to "prove" Tibet is part of South Asia. Goodness knows why - it is hardly a very important point (except perhaps politically for some people). John Hill (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


I have monitored the articles of Tibet and South Asia for years, and I have seen User:Thegreyanomaly repeatedly pushing this sort of, no offence, crappy politcal-propaganda POV, almost since he/she came to South Asia. And I see that he/she now turns to Tibet where all other editors has long decided NOT listing the region as part of South Asia.

With these kind of "edits", South Asia became one of the geopolitical articles with the lowest quality (least encyclopedic) I've ever seen.

Wikipedia really needs some quality editors/edtis or it will be destroyed by those propagadists. --210.0.212.59 (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the references, its best we (John Hill and me) go over this after his trip. Some of your reversions were valid but then afterwards you accidentally started removing from the Afghanistan list

Regarding 210.0.212.59. I believe you still need to explain how this is propaganda. I am not going to debate with you until you do so. If universities are spewing propaganda then evidence needs to be provided indicating that they are spewing propaganda. Also you need to review Wikipedia:Civility. You have violated some of Wikipedia's civility protocols. User:Master of Puppets has stated such on my talk page saying that he is going to put something on your talk page about it. You need to explain to me why this mention does not merit being put up. MANY universities support it for whatever reason. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly: go back and clean up your sources. Not all of them support your position. In particular:
[39] - 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. was quoted by you as this sources admits in historical senses that Tibet and Afghanistan should be considered South Asian -- don't misquote things!
[40] - In this collection, the South Asia region includes the countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. ... Other languages in which materials are acquired are: Bengali, Hindi, Pali, Prakrit, Sanskrit, Tamil, Tibetan, Urdu and European languages.
[41] - broken
[42] - South Asian subcontinent, which includes the current nation-states of alphabetically) Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the historically linked contiguous regions that today constitute the states of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq to the west, Tibet (now part of China) to the north, and relevant portions of Southeast Asia. quoted by you as this sources admits in historical senses that Tibet and Afghanistan should be considered South Asian -- if anything this suggests the opposite of what you claim; once again don't misquote things!!!
[43] - where's Tibet in this page?
[44] - broken
Also I am wary of using links that list Tibetan as a South Asian language as proof that Tibet is a part of South Asia. After all forms of Tibetan are dominant in Bhutan, Sikkim, Ladakh, and Arunachal Pradesh.
210.0.212.59: calm down.
-- ran (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


I hereby "hide" those highly controversial sections, let's return to the talk pages here for consensus first and, if reached, fix those broken/fake links later. Kindly note that the university sources, even with authority, are only showing us the picture that Tibet might be culturally South Asian and, as Ran said, it does not necessarily represent forming part of South Asia

The previous edits had technically violated WP:CON, WP:V and WP:RS.

- MainBody (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


ok I revised the reference list. They're at the bottom of my talk page for now if any of you want to look. I took down the Helsinki site (it appears to reorganized their website). I reworded the comment on the Brandeis link. I fixed the Rutgers link. At the time when I put up the sources, I thought it would be logical to display the sources to justify Tibet as part of South Asia along with the sources that claim Tibet as at least linked to South Asia. The Britannica source originally started with an ip vandal who listed the Tibetan plateau as being East Asian (which was obviously wrong) and then afterwards it got fixed to Central Asia and the Britannica citation got added. For whatever reason it was just left there.

Anyways, MainBody, the sources aren't showing a picture that Tibet might be South Asian. They are stating that it is. The Madison source has a dotted line because it is sadly politically incorrect to depict Tibet as an independent state (as it is now under PRC rule). Also if you click on Tibet on the map you get led here [45]. A better UW-Madison source is this one [46]. The UW-Madison source was one of the first sources I added for Tibet, and since then the outreach page changed. Originally it was clearer on what it affirmed as South Asia; it used have all the places' name, flag, est. population, and a link. Everything in this debate is starting over instances of confusion.

First I added sources for and against Tibet being South Asian Then John Hill begins to take out the 'against' sources, but when he is he accidentally starts removing some Afghanistan sources by accident and claims there to be fake sources and makes the comment about UW-Madison saying that Tibet is only possibly South Asian. (You can look at all the other sources and you will clearly see that none of the sources are making such claim) Then 210.0.212.59 hears of this and writes on everyone's walls that I am using fake sources that never mention Tibet. And now the idea that sources only claim that Tibet may be South Asian is running amok.

Ok so in short, I reviewed all the sources. They're on the bottom of my talk page. These are only the sources claiming that Tibet IS South Asian. The ones that said Tibet is related to South Asia have been removed. I'll take out the SALRC source.

Also keep in mind that Tibet is not being added on the portion of the list saying that "Tibet is always considered South Asia" it is in the portion of the list saying "Tibet has often been recorded as being called South Asian by well-respected academics" Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also just to make it clear. I did EXACTLY what Ran told me to, I cleaned up my sources. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also here is the instance where John Hill removed sources from Afghanistan by accident thinking they were sources for Tibet http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Asia&diff=183495184&oldid=183494380 Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


What has John Hill's edits got to do with the status of the sources you provided? Now we clearly see the article saying something about this geographical location. Why list the place which are only Culturally-influenced. If such weird analogy makes sense, other editor may also add Indonesia(or a portion) and many other region as South Asian "just because" they are "culturally-South Asian according to some university cultural centers in the United States"?

You seem sidestepping the issue and going offtopic. To convince other editors please spend sometime in digging out Geopolitical sources supporting you edits instead of starting edit war.

Honestly, this article is becoming OR. - MainBody (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Tibet, PRC

Please feel free to convince us that Tibet is now not part of PRC. We need quality editorship.

Like it or not the status has been affirmed internationally (at least by all neighboring states) since the 1950s:

219.79.122.72 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The article already claims that PRC administers Tibet, I don't see any reason to remove the PRC entry -219.79.122.72 (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


disputed map of South Asia

Thanks for your tireless efforts, but we should wait and have consensus on Talk Page here before we go further.

Firstly, the map itself should note and clarify weasel words like "also sometimes include".

Secondary, the Tibet region, culturally South Asian, should not, at least at this moment, "share" boundaries with China Proper. Take a look at this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/South_Asia_%28ed3%29.PNG . We can see that there are no boundaries between RFE, regarded as culturally East Asian, and other part of Russian Federation.

Please fully understand that on this kind of heated and controversial topics, I have seen many "editors" try their very best to push their own POV, as the map just added is not supported by any universally-authoritative source, so let's discuss carefully first.

--219.79.122.72 (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC) The map reflects, the definition put on the page. An admin User:Ran has allowed Tibet to remain on the page in its current form. If it is allowed to be on the page. I'll fix the top part of the page (mainly by cropping out everything north of Tibet), thanks for bringing that up. I'll revert the map of the page until I get it fixed. Also you need to get on thing straight, you're not going to find any universally accepted definition of South Asia. A significant number of valid academic sources cite places such as Tibet and Afghanistan as South Asia, and therefore these two places should be be mentioned. People may not like this view that academics are taking with Tibet and South Asia, but just because they don't like it, doesn't mean it is pov. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood your RFE comment. Russian borders are identical to the ones on the old map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I put my modified map back Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


If so why the disputed map's still here showing Tibet sharing borders with China Proper and nothing about the controversial status of Tibet(Afghanistan and Iran are not that controversial as you think as both status are supported by international sources including UN and Worldbank) UN definition or sources including Encyclopedia Britannica are universally accepted, it is someone who add those controversial university cultural/language center stuff.

Tibet Plateau's status as Central Asian has long been accepted worldwide. Thats WHY we've clarified with the sub-article "Controversial Definition". We should kindly note that Ran letting it stay doesn't mean that the American/UK university sources are no longer controversial.

Please kindly read this. Let me know if its difficult to understand.

219.79.122.72 (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The controversy over the definition with Tibet and Afghanistan are identical. The question is are they really both part of South Asia, this has NOTHING to do with whether Tibet has legally/illegally annexed by the PRC. A substantial number of academic sources are stating that Tibet is part of South Asia, and therefore Tibet warrants a mention on the page (and it is mentioned on the page). I put this map up because the prior map was simply the UN subregion and it did not match up with what was being stated on the page. The reflects what is being said on the page, period. Tibet is staying under the definition section on the page because it is cited and has been overviewed and approved by an admin; since, Tibet is to stay on the map and since the issues regarding Afghanistan appear to have been solved at least for the time being, the map should be updated. If you are offended by the Tibet overlay on the map, modify the map in a way to include Tibet and make it seem "less-offensive" Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Also please create an account considering that you are on a shared ip address. It is just a precaution, because you could be accidentally held accountable for the acts of others who edit wikipedia from your ip. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

For starters, I did not "allow" the content to say. An admin has no more or less power regarding content than anyone else. Please don't drag me in and use me as an argument. Admins do not review and approve content and if I said that something looked fine, that doesn't mean that it is therefore fine, or that something else related to the first thing is fine.
Secondly, it would help to remove the line that denotes an international border from the map.
--ran (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


User:Thegreyanomaly, just tell me if you don't understand the english word of "Border" ->http://dictionary.com/browse/border. Moreover, I dont think you still fully understand User:219.XX.XX.XX while providing you the map showing NO BOUNDARIES lying between the East Asian portion and other portion of the Russian state.

Ran and many other editors have shown that all the sources you provided are full of loopholes, I dont think those Cultural Centers showing highly Pro-Dharamsala viewpoint and even snowlion flags are NPOV sources. Respected admins like Ran and Khoikhoi have made great effort on well-balanced Tibet-related articles by removing those crappy pro-Dharamsala/Beijing sources, we fully hope that you can support such effort or you are just thwarding the progress.

Nevertheless, please feel free to come back with a modified map and couple of geopolitical sources showing NPOV.(Emphasis added) - MainBody (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok i have removed the Sino-Tibetan border on the map, I'll upload it later. I am requesting an RfC on this page. You could argue a NPOV case theoretically, but this is by no means OR. I have cited UK and US academic sources that add Tibet as part of South Asia.Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"UK and US"? I've read the Wikipedia guidelines, have you? Anyway, I fully support to have an RfC. MainBody (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC bot is busted as I've read on the RfC talk page. I manually added the RfC. If I am not oversimplifiying the debate, it is fair to say that this mainly on the purpose of whether this page should be strictly geopolitical.

BTW I suggest we hold of editing the Tibet-related stuff until we get word from the RfC. I will stay of it, if you will Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


Wrong, South Asia is itself a geographical location(see introduction), just like Japan and many other regions. Anyone with common sense won't list Taiwan as part of Japan just because Taiwanese culture is heavily affected by Japan! Would you list Burma/Myanma as part of China/Tibet just because the Burmese language belongs to the Sino-Tibetan language system? The article of Indosphere seems rather suitable to list TAR.

Is it that difficult to understand? MainBody (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well then I guess plenty of British and American university departments are full of people without common sense then. They view Tibet as culturally South Asian and therefore South Asian. If you're dealing with South Asia in strictly geopolitical terms, you are (solely) dealing with the definitions provided the UN and maybe SAARC and therefore marginalizing all academics who think they have another article. Much of the academic value of the article with go out the window if one. They're academic authorities, their view counts.

Off-topic And also in terms of Sino-Tibetan language, Tibetan, Myanmar, various NE Indian and Nepali languages, and Dzongkha fit on the Tibeto-Burman side, whereas Chinese fits on the Sinitic side. Most languages within Tibeto-Burman are Tibetan, Himalayan, or Burmese. They are related to Chinese but the relation is rather distant considering their division goes back all the way to the first point of divergence. Also to note very few Chinese languages are on the Tibeto-Burman side of the split. Sino-Tibetan is a multiregional language group

Anyways let us wait for the RfC. I've got a chem midterm tomorrow night, so I, hopefully, won't be back here until Monday around 8-9PM pacific as I need to study. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also I would like to mention that the East Asia article also provides both a geopolitical and a cultural definition. If this is permissible on East Asia, it should be permissible on South Asia Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC) are you not going to respond? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Should Tibet be here? Many academic sources say Tibet is South Asian. Also should this article be strictly geopolitical in its definition of South Asia?

(Also see debate above)

comment If you can find sources saying that Tibet is part of South Asia, then include it. And add that other sources consider Tibet to be part of some other part of Asia. This UN stuff is just a grouping for statistical/convenience purposes, IMO (I have argued this kind of argument elsewhere already) it is far from being a definition, let alone the only valid one. How seriously the UN itself takes this kind of stuff can be seen from here as contrasted with the "definition" given at Western Europe, which is probably derived from some other UN site. IMO these kind of maps should all look more like this one, since it is rather clear that anyone can make up his or her own definition. Yaan (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. regarding this geopolitics stuff, I don't know what it is meant to be good for. The claim that South Asia should only be defined in a geopolitical context appears not even sourced. My understanding is that most people understand that South Asia is simply a part of Asia, somewhere in the south. IMO the intro should look somewhat like "South Asia is the region of Asia that includes the Indian Subcontinent [alternatively: that is bounded by the Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, and the middle East]. Most defintions include India, Pakistan, ..., others also include ...., while some even include ... . etc. Actually, all this should be easy to solve with a look at WP:NPOV. There are probably also some Dictionaries and other encyclopedias (the horror!) out there which, while maybe not really conform with WP:SOURCES, might still give a clue about what English-speaking people consider South Asia to be. Yaan (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All the sources are academic, from academic authorities from multiple English-speaking universities. I do not see how one can legitimately justify they are not npov. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Tibet is part of Central Asia as difined by the United Nations. See Central Asia. (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.7.76 (talk)

I actually would like to see the source for above statement (wikipedia doesn't count). The UN does use its own grouping, but I do not think they indicate anywhere that this particular grouping should be the preferred one for anyone outside the UN statistics office. Nor do they indicate that their grouping is the only valid one. Yaan (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Neither do I consider UN as the only authoritative source, but it doesn't mean that we should at this moment greenlight the highly non-universal sources (Virtually all the supporting sources are from US/EU). Comparatively United Nations' is much more universal. Got my point? :)MainBody (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
But the United Nation's grouping might also be much more arbitrary. Do they give any justification for why they consider Botswana part of Southern Africa and Simbabwe not? Also they seem to be grouping whole countries - Are you telling me the UN really thinks that all of Istanbul is in West Asia? And, I hate to say it, this is English Wikipedia, so the article should describe what South Asia is taken to mean in English-language sources. And then it is kind of logical that we should consider sources from the US and the UK. Yaan (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
And both the US and EU view Tibet as part of China. How is a view NPOV because of the geographic location of the scholars who support it? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't get my point. No country, neither western nor eastern nor African, gives Tibet diplomatic recognizion, logically universal view on Tibet as part of PRC is thus seen. And now, in order to show it as universal, kindly give me a list of non-western (For NPOV, you can exclude India's or PRC's) source proving Tibet as part of geographically part of South Asia.(It is what I asked you to for months/a year). You totally forgot the discussion on Talk:Tibet? MainBody (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

MainBody has disappeared for over a week Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am still waiting for more on-topic comments especially on, as listed above, whether we shall focus on geopolitics instead of academics from western universities sources. I appreciate your contribution on South Asia, but please read this wiki guideline which suggests we should avoid non-universal viewpoint. MainBody (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The RfCer Yaan has stated that the article should be broader than geopolitical. Also please respond to my comment on your talkpage before you start talking about geopolitics again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if we can go non-geopolitical, why cultural reason would make it "part of South Asia". If cultural perspectives are considered, we should use wording like, "Tibetan/Afghanistan culture influenced/dominated by that of South Asia" instead of list the country with "Area (km²)", "Population", "coat of arm" which are all geographical and political instead of cultural!
Please convince me, Indonesian culture's elements are dominated by Indian culture, is the country "Part of South Asia", are Chinatowns in other countries part of East Asia? MainBody (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is a question I asked of MainBody that he never answered:

You're problem is that you don't think the South Asia article should include only a geopolitical/geographical definition, but if you look clearly, the East Asia and Southeast Asia articles have multiple definitions (specifically East Asia which has a cultural and geopolitical definition on the page just as South Asia currently does). Also four out of the five European region articles, North Asia, Southwest Asia don't even mention the world geopolitical. The articles on regions of the world are all homologous to eachother. They all have the same purpose but for different places. If you can tolerate East Asia having a cultural definition, you really have no business trying to remove a cultural definition from South Asia. The East Asia article has a region of Russia (RFE) alternately just South Asia should have a "region" of the PRC (Tibet) shaded.

So just a friendly reminder, please don't try to display a bias between South Asia and East Asia or any of the other region pages; if you really care about the article displaying a cultural definition you should be doing the same things to East Asia as you are to South Asia, but you're not as your contribs record shows you've never edited East Asia or Talk:East Asia. If your real problem is seeing Tibet on South Asia and you think it pov, then address it as such and not as a geopolitical issue.

Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


So are you saying I should go edit all other geopolitical Wikipedia articles before I come to South Asia? Actually I didn't notice that big problem until you told me but please also kindly note that the East Asia article citation on "cultural term" is technically dubious as the source only mention East Asian Cultural Sphere instead of telling me "East Asia"(not East Asian[adj.]) can be a cultural term. I hope you were not drawing the attention away because we should know that we editors shall edit wikipedia according to the cited NPOV sources instead of other articles. (This analogy or reference to other wikis doesn't work). Two-wrongs do not make one right. MainBody (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


The RfC said we should include cultural elements, pages homologous to this one do not even mention geopolitics (so therefore why should this one, you need to justify that). South Asia studies departments define their regions based of cultural spheres, because they primarily study culture, linguistics, and history. They include Tibet in the SA sphere. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional refutations:

  • The internet is full of Western sources written in the Latin alphabet, and this is the Anglophone wikipedia, you can expect that most sources will be Western due to linguistic barriers. I can't read or write in any non-Indic Asiatic or Middle-Eastern scripts to search for such sources.
  • The RfC told us that if sources say Tibet is South Asian, then Tibet should be mentioned with sources that say it is not also (you can feel free to add sources that counter the "western universities"); this is independent of geography; also please acknowledge that the views of academics on wikipedia are to be viewed greater than views of individual wikipedians. You may be disgruntled with this view, but that does not mean its wrong. If you don't like it go find academic sources that state this view is wrong and why it is wrong.
  • Also please explain what is inherently biased about sources from western countries. I admit that sources are all from west, but the countries of origin of these sources are (presently) unrelated to the conflicted status of Tibet
  • Indonesia is not even contiguous to the strict geographic definition of South Asia, Tibet on the other hand is contiguous to strict geographic South Asia. Indonesia and Tibet are completely different.

I am calling on a second RfCer to come and to hopefully quiet your concerns Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

It's absolutely asurd. Who on earth said that English Wikipedia should simply follow Anglophonic Western sources? If this kind of "logic" works, our respected admins would not set Wikipedia guidelines telling us not to follow western bias. All along you are reluctant to read the Wikipedia guidelines. Please just admit it.
And if the Tibet case is not about geographical, then tell me why you inserted Geogrpahical figures on the table? - MainBody (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That is how the English wikipedia works. The English wikipedia is targeted to English speaking people, so we need to abide by the linguistic boundaries. If you can find non-Western sources in English, go ahead and source them. I've looked for them, and I couldn't find them. The closest thing I found was page from the University of Helsinki, which was still European. It was mentioned on Talk:Tibet too that Western sources are more or less expected for an English Wikipedia. Even the RfC mentioned it. I have read Wikipedia guidelines. I have no problem with non-Western sources, but they need to be in ENGLISH otherwise they serve no purpose on the English wikipedia. People like me and you understand language other than English, but we cannot assume the average Wikipedia will be able to make any sense of them. And besides that point. The RfCs have made it clear, TIBET BELONGS ON THIS PAGE. Tibet should stand on this page as it does currently. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Justification as per why the wording of "Controvery over the Definition" was wrong: Template_talk:Asian_capitals#RfC:_The_proper_geographic_regional_location_of_Afghanistan_in_Asia. Conflicts between Wikipedians does not constitute controversy. This is citing an admin Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Okay, I am convinced.MainBody (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Not April 2008

The page as it stands demonstrates who thinks Tibets fits where. That seems fine. Note that culturally and religiously Tibet is closer to Nepal/Bhutan/Ladakh/Sikkim than any part of China, so I don't imagine that sociologists would be arguing otherwise. Relata refero (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC2

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Economies of South Asia

This article has the economies of South Asia listed in GDP(PPP) while India is listed in GDP Nominal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.248.94 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove Afganistan and Iran - for ignorant reasons!!

Someone noted to remove Afganistan and Iran off, because they are "better looking" than Indians and Pakistanis. Enough....there are good and bad looking people in all races.

It's a fact that SOME Indians and Pakistanis are a bit darker (which some would refer to unattractive) because they live closer to the EQUATOR and some are outdoor workers!! HOT SUN = DARK SKIN -idiot!! That does not mean they are not from the Aryan race, for example, wasn't it a white man that played Ghandi in the movie "Ghandi"? Same features and body structure!!

Alot of Persians, Afganos and Arabs have really kinki hair- maybe because they have Afro desendents in them!! Oh, have I offended you!! If an Iranian or Afganistan person lived in India or Pakistan - they would definatley have darker skin over hundreds of years - idiot!!

Check the facts behind DNA before you sound even more stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.66.56 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nepal: separate country from ancient times or just after Britishers defined it as separate entity from India?

There are some sentences over here which says Nepal is a separate country from old times. I do not agree with that. Nepal lies beside Ganges plains, which are the home ground for Indian civilization. Nepal was a part on India from ancient times. There was never a separate country named 'Nepal' before Britishers came to India. like all other small kingdoms on Indian subcontinent, Nepal has its own little kingdom, which are just as Indian in every aspects as every other Indian kingdoms. Britishers tried to win Nepal in a war but they lost and they made treaty with Nepal king, in the same way they did with many other big Indian kingdoms. Thus, even before 1947 (year of Indian Independence), it was just a kingdom. During independence and partition of India and Pakistan, all kingdoms which share international borders and sea coast are given choice to either join India, Pakistan or being Independent. Nepal chose to be independent and due to its strategic location (having Tibet(china)as neighbor), no one risked to persuade Nepal and thus Nepal became an independent country. Thus, though we can say that Nepal was an independent entity after Britishers came, it gained its full independent after the independence of India (because the treaty that binded Nepal and Great Britain was over). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushan shah (talk • contribs) 01:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale in regards to not listing Nepal as an independent nation "from old times" is understood. However, your argument is technically flawed as Nepal existed as an independent kingdom for several centuries prior to the formation of an Indian nation state. As you have pointed out, "India" itself consisted of several disparate kingdoms prior to the arrival of the British who then unified those regions they colonised into what later became India. I understand your perspective in not considering these former ancient kingdoms as being true "countries" but, by this very same reasoning, "India" itself did not exist as it consisted of only kingdoms as well. The ancient kingdom of Nepal was no more a part of the "kingdom of India" than the kingdom of Bengal was a part of the Punjabi kingdom. Which former kingdom of "ancient India" would you propose Nepal was a part of? It was never a part of Oudh or Bengal. Even maps based on the Mahabharat depict the region of Nepal as being listed as the kingdoms "Nepa" and "Kirata". Even a broader kingdom such as the Mauryan Empire only extended into what is now considered the Nepali terai. I appreciate your dedication to the truth and respect your opinion while respectfully disagreeing with it myself. Perhaps others can also share their opinion on this? To this effect, I have proceeded with removing the statement that Nepal was considered a part of India. To be fair, I also deleted the reference that Buddha was "born in Nepal" as it could be argued that Lumbini was not technically a part of Nepal until the latter was unified in 1768. Encyclopedia1742 (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought that perhaps a visual aid might be helpful. The following is a map from 1760, "Clive's India" which clearly demarcates the regions of British India. Note that at this time (up until the 1814-1816 war), Nepal was not only not a part of India but, in fact was considerably larger: it incuded Sikkim, Uttarkhand, Uttarunchal, etc. Nepal lost these areas to the British in 1816. http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~poyntz/India/images/india1760_1905.jpg User:Encyclopedia1742|Encyclopedia1742]] (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nepal existed as a separate kingdom from early times

For details see the articles History of Nepal and Nepal. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Geography Section

Hello, I noticed that the Geography section is being expanded- kudos to whoever is putting in the time to do this. However, I wanted to discuss the corresponding map that was added in this section: "India Natural Vegetation". While I think this is excellent information, and understand that this is a work in progress, may I suggest that we use a south asian map versus an Indian one? For one thing, the map of India being used would most likely be found to be somewhat disagreeable with our Pakistani counterparts. Moreover, it seems to insinuate that India is south asia and south asia is India.

However, if the intent of the author is to add corresponding maps for each country of south asia, then more power to you! I can try and find such maps if it is agreed that this is the course of action to take. Any feedback would be most appreciated!

P.S. Sorry if this was already discussed somehere above: I scanned the existing sections and didn't see any reference to it but, then again, the existing discussion is getting kind of long and I may have very well missed it. Encyclopedia1742 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point mate. I made that map, so go ahead and remove it. I'll make a Vegetation-South Asia map whenever I'm free. (Please find me a reference map if you can).Cheers - Amog |Talk 05:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 Done - Amog |Talk 11:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, have been busy- love the Vegetation-South Asia map you made! Thanks again- Encyclopedia1742 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks:) Please help expand the Geo-section whenever you're free.- Amog |Talk 10:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Asia/Archive_1&oldid=1137195206"