Talk:Indian subcontinent: Difference between revisions
→NPOV: haha |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
::Hey, how about renaming the article to Indo-Pak-Bangla-Lanka-Nepali Subcontinent? Oh forgot to add Bhutanese. LOL! --[[User:Deepak gupta|Incman]]|[[User talk:Deepak gupta|वार्ता]] 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
::Hey, how about renaming the article to Indo-Pak-Bangla-Lanka-Nepali Subcontinent? Oh forgot to add Bhutanese. LOL! --[[User:Deepak gupta|Incman]]|[[User talk:Deepak gupta|वार्ता]] 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::This is an old topic from the dates, but just in case it every comes back, as a Bangladeshi, I do not like the use of Indian Subcontinent to describe the countries in South Asia, since there is the terminology "South Asia" itself. However, as far as I know, from the geological perspective, "Indian Subcontinent" is a technical term and it should be left as it is, unless one can cite technical papers (produced inside and outside South Asia) that use a different terminology. |
|||
:::[[User:Urnonav|urnonav]] 06:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Style== |
==Style== |
Revision as of 06:41, 13 December 2006
Where did the term "subcontinent" originate? The term predates the acceptance of plate tectonics - it was common in Kipling in the 19th century, back when plate tectonics wasn't even a crank theory, let alone accepted science. - David Gerard 17:18, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
NPOV
Can't we tone down the statement that:
- It is also known as the "Subcontinent" and, though "Indian subcontinent" is the standard name used in international circles, "Indo-Pak subcontinent", which has cache primarily in the nation of Pakistan.
a little? Maybe something like:
- It is also known just as the "Subcontinent", the "Indian subcontinent", and the "Indo-Pak subcontinent", with the last phrase preferred in Pakistan.
--iFaqeer 21:06, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Hey, how about renaming the article to Indo-Pak-Bangla-Lanka-Nepali Subcontinent? Oh forgot to add Bhutanese. LOL! --Incman|वार्ता 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is an old topic from the dates, but just in case it every comes back, as a Bangladeshi, I do not like the use of Indian Subcontinent to describe the countries in South Asia, since there is the terminology "South Asia" itself. However, as far as I know, from the geological perspective, "Indian Subcontinent" is a technical term and it should be left as it is, unless one can cite technical papers (produced inside and outside South Asia) that use a different terminology.
- urnonav 06:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Style
- "Tone down"? There's no attack or fire in this statement, which has nothing to do with NPOV but the current state of affairs. Indian subcontinent is a term overwhelmingly used to identify the area and shortening to 'subcontinent' by non-Pakistanis always implies "Indian subcontinent". The current suggestion also sounds clumsy. We should also give preference to the standard (and most-used) name (Indian subcontinent). How about this?
- The Indian subcontinent is also referred to, more simply, as just the "Subcontinent". It is also known, primarily in Pakistan, as the "Indo-Pak subcontinent".
- By prevaricating we're not going to do anything but shroud the truth of the subject. We should just tell it like it is.--LordSuryaofShropshire 21:30, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Usage Note
What do folks think of my latest changes?--iFaqeer 22:53, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
History is history
A historical reality cannot be wiped out by current political expediencies. History and politics should not be merged - here we are writing an encyclopaedia, and not discussing political dynamics and terminology. As such, I shall be restoring the page with suitable contents at the earliest as a redirection to South Asia is not appropriate. --Bhadani 16:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Someone did the job. I shall try to contribute more, as and when possible. --Bhadani 16:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. The reinstatement is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.197.240 (talk • contribs) of 20.05.06
- You may register if you wish. --Bhadani 16:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
South Asia
Can someone explain why the "see also" is constantly reverted? Unless it is explained here, I will revert to a version with it. Hornplease 05:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Balochistan
As far as I know, most of the Balochistan region lies within the Iranian Plateau which geographically is not a part of the Indian subcontinent. Since Balochistan covers a major part of Pakistan, the article should mention that geographically not entire Pakistan lies within the Indian subcontinent. Remember, Indian subcontinent is a geographic term, not a political one. --Incman|वार्ता 20:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Interestingly, User:Bharatveer first blanked the references (with the reference section too!) twice [1],[2], and then even more interestingly, changed the text to claim that Balochistan is a part of the region!! I'd request User:Bharatveer to read the reference before making such reverts and changes. Specifically, when the text (and the reference) said that Pakistan (excluding Balochistan) is part of Indian subcontinent, I don't understand the logic behind changing the text to include Balochistan as a separate country under Indian subcontinent! --Ragib 08:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The cite regarding Balochistan refers to the Iranian province of Sistan-e-Baluchistan, not the Pakistani province of Balochistan. A better cite is needed. Afghan Historian 17:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Though the article is about Sistan-e-Baluchistan, it clearly says that Balochistan (and not just Iranian Balouchistan) lies in the Middle East. The article makes the point very clear. --Incman|वार्ता 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, scroll down and read the sections on History and Environmental issues. The article talks about Balouchistan as a whole. --Incman|वार्ता 18:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)