Talk:Indian subcontinent

South Asia

South Asia and the Indian Subcontinent are supposed to contain the same countries, but this article does not mention Afghanistan like the article on South Asia. Please include the name of Afghanistan in this article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2818:1B45:0:0:0:1 (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that says Afghanistan is on the Indian subcontinent? At least geologically, I don't think that's the case, and I see no reason why the definitions of "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" should coincide. Huon (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

One good reason could be that "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are two terms that are used interchangeably. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Most sources rather suggest inclusion of Afghanistan being difference between Indian subcontinent & South Asia, countries lying on Indo Australian plate. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"Most sources"!!! Check again. After going through hundreds of books and journals I have found only two that says so. No wonder you are using "cherrypicking" as a core argument. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Alternative Terms

Do we really have to list all possible alternative terms like "Asian Subcontinent", "South Asian Subcontinent",  "Indo-Pak subcontinent"? These terms lack significant importance and lack of scholarly sources. Mention of these terms violate WP:UNDUE. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

One/two word mentions may not be weightage enough to trigger an WP:UNDUE. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It is WP:UNDUE because you are throwing all the possible terms here without waiting enough for them to become common enough. You WP:CHERRYPICKED sources and tidbits then created a paragraph. Now since it is being disputed you are editing warring to restore it in violation of WP:BRD. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• I also agree that these terms should not be added until they have gained enough attention of mainstream sources. Right now, "Indian subcontinent" is only how the region is commonly known as and there are no other alternative terms. Santosh L (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@ArvindPalaskar: You made me go through WP:COMMONNAME, a policy document about article titles, and an essay about misrepresenting sources you quoted, and I sincerely couldn't find how either of the policy or the essay apply here. Could you please help me by refering to exactly which part of the policy or the essay was violated?

As for WP:UNDUE, the policy explicitly explains how minority views are to be included, and a mere mention is not a violation. Again, can we help by showing which part of the policy was violated?

@Santoshsatvik: ""Indian subcontinent" is only how the region is commonly known"... indeed. "Indian subcontinent" is the title of the article, and it is the name used across the article and across my edits. Neither of the two sentences you removed (with a not-very-polite ES: lets discuss this new edit first) were in contradiction or conflict with that statement. Can you please tell how are they in conflict?

On the other hand removing them may be not entirely in compliance with WP:BALANCE and WP:STATUSQUO. But, despite policies and all, I would rather have a consensus and not an edit war, so refraining from reinstating them without a discussion. I am sure we all will come out of this happier.

Thank you both for taking an interest in betterment of the article. Y Let me offer you two cups of tea for all the wonderful collaborations that can happen here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, I found a lot of stuff on the "wet part" of the Indian subcontinent, the part of the Indian plate that's submerged in the Indian ocean. Would that be something worth taking a look into? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Confusing undue views with minority views is not helpful at all. Minorities views to be included are those which hold significant coverage among academia and commonly in use. Undue ones are insignificant minorities those have nearly nil mentions anywhere. How many academic or mainstream or news sources you can provide for the new names introduced? I am very fond of reading ,never faced these terms and can provide countless sources to contradict it. "On the other hand removing them may be not entirely in compliance with WP:BALANCE and WP:STATUSQUO." Not at all. Undoing a recent unilateral edit with a good reason is rather a compilance of WP:STATUSQUO. As for wet part of Indian plate, we may keep that in history section. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

There were "enough" mentions, and even specific explanations, provided with citations, which you two have removed. Asking for citations after removing them may not always be the best thing to do. You not coming across something doesn't make it non-existent or ignorable.

As for the enlightening commentary on the difference between "undue views" and "minority views", can you refer to any Wikipedia policy document that support what you stated? Any such reference would be highly useful, since your entire reason for removal of cited, sourced and balanced material seems to depend on the undue-ness of the material.

Finally, I am having a little difficulty understanding "unilateral edit". Can you kindly explain what exactly do you mean by it?

Not commenting on STATUSQUO or BALANCE, because neither seem to matter in this discussion at the moment. Also waiting for Santoshsatvik to make a comment. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE already has sufficient elaborations to guide you that you can't just add any minority view unless it has significant coverage and notability. Except of cherrypicked sources from certain writers where even either entire publication or a significant section of it stressing these names for political representativeness, they don't have any visible coverage in academia or common or even a minor use in scholastic discourse anywhere. No weasel arguments would help, you would need to contradict it by verifyng general use of term. Further, a unilateral edit is one undertaken by an individual before contemplating actions with anyone else. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Only a sentence mentioning the alternative names of the term is not UNDUE, especially when the names have been used by multiple sources. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Context of use plays a huge role. These cherrypicked sources are an insignificant minority and don't hold enough weight to make these terms usable. As told by Arvind, these sources in fact were written while using emphasis on new terms as their subject for the sake of political representation of India's neighboring countries. If particular minority views are notable, you have to verify that by providing a good number of sources mentioning it as "South Asian subcontinent", "Indo Pak subcontinent" or "Asia subcontinent" while analysing subcontinent in general context. If not, then these views are not even minority views worth inclusion.

These alternative terms have to be mentioned as regularly by reliable sources otherwise it is just WP:UNDUE to add them here. Santosh L (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, much of this discussion is based on misinterpretation snd misunderstanding of various Wikipedia documents. Before the confusions go any further, allow me to quickly run you two through a refresher on the documents quoted.

• Two style documents:

1. WP:COMMONNAME: A document about article titles, and has nothing to do with the content. ✗ Fail Doesn't apply.
2. WP:WEASEL: A document about vague claims and attributions, and has nothing to do with sourced and cited information. ✗ Fail Doesn't apply.

• One behavioural document:

1. WP:BRD: A supplementary document that dictates that "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting."

That evidently is happening in accordance to the suggestion, and hence ✗ Fail Doesn't apply.

• Two content documents:

1. WP:CHERRYPICK: An essay about misrepresenting sources. As many of the cites came with clear quotes from the sources, this too ✗ Fail Doesn't apply.
2. WP:UNDUE: A guideline about "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Since that's not what we are discussing ✗ Fail Doesn't apply.

Looking for a policy to use?

This type of WP:POLSHOP can happen when someone goes into a discussion to win a WP:BATTLE by declaring "lets discuss this new edit first". Or when someone wants to establish an WP:OR like "Indian subcontinent is only how the region is commonly known as and there are no other alternative terms." Or simply when someone is lacking enough WP:COMPETENCE to uphold WP:IDONTLIKE. Not WP:LISTEN to repeated requests to refer to specific parts of quoted documents that support the argument also doesn't look nice.

Can I offer a policy or two?

Setting all the POLSHOP aside the argument seems to be about "significant coverage and notability" and supposedly not "a good number of sources mentioning it", written in many different ways and WP:REPEAT over and over again. If that is the case, then the policy you two are looking for may be WP:NOTE in general, and WP:NNC in particular. If not, then I am sure there are other policies that you can use here for better effect. Otherwise this attempted removal of content and citations that are pretty well covered by WP:OTHERNAMES doesn't have enough WP:RVREASONS to hold up.

It still is about editing in good faith.

By the way, both the sentences were already in the article (one of them in exactly the same position as the time of the BOLD revert). The other was actually two sentences, which I merged to reduced weightage. Also when it was disputed for undue weight given, I moved it down to the section on "name" (per BRD: "when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns", but, of course, I didn't understand the concerns well enough).

Thank you both. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue is people are just linking WP:UNDUE in the discussion without even properly going through the entire page of WP:NPOV. UNDUE doesn't mean you have to remove any mention of the minority views. I would rather suggest those alternative names be included in the lead sentence per MOS:BOLDSYN. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

@Kamzayeem, that is your problem if you cannot understand the underlying dispute.

@Aditya Kabir, now instead of WP:WIKILAWYERING, can you see any problems with your editing? Lets see what your sources actually say:

• This BBC source about mosquitoes does not say "Indian subcontinent is also known as Asian subcontinent".
• This source about terrorism does not say "Indian subcontinent is also known as Asian subcontinent".
• This source says "In this chapter we have tried to turn a few pages in the recent history of South Asian nations from Afghanistan to Maldives". Clearly, the author is looking for South Asia, not Indian subcontinent which does not include Afghanistan.
• This source says "Except some confidence - building measures which can be easily implemented in the Indo - Pak subcontinent". Where does it claim that Indian subcontinent is also referred to as "Indo - Pak subcontinent?

What you are currently doing is indeed WP:OR and adding what is not even supported by the source. You cannot summarise the references in your own words per WP:OR.

Can you find multiple sources for each of these terms which say "Indian subcontinent covering regions from Pakistan to Maldives are also known as xxxxxxxx (an alternative term)"? ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Why exactly do you need a source to say "Indian subcontinent covering regions from Pakistan to Maldives are also known as xxxxxxxx (an alternative term)"? Which part of Wikipedia or common sense requires RS to repeat your exact phrasing (especially when there is absolutely no consensus on the which countries are part of the Indian subcontinent)? Please, understand that no one is writing a book on alternative names of Indian Subcontinent, or trying to appease editors who doesn't like it. As far as Wikipedia policies go (which may or may not be policies that you uphold), them "using the name" to denote/identify the region is good enough.

It's you who went out to shop for policies and ended up with the wrong policy, and now you bring out one more (WP:LAWYER). Stop for a while, to look into the mirror, please. Maybe we should refer to WP:STONEWALL here, as it seems that we are not discussing what would make WP a better encyclopedia, but what would make you happy.

And, please, check WP:OTHERNAMES. None of your requirements are required by Wikipedia policies. (Also read WP:OR before you quote it, and understand that it doesn't apply to talk page discussions) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way I just noticed that you wrote "Clearly, the author is looking for South Asia, not Indian subcontinent which does not include Afghanistan."... indeed, the author was clearly "looking for South Asia" (whatever that means) when he wrote on page 17, "The South Asian Subcontinent is also desccribed as the Indian Subcontinent." I also couldn't help noticing that while you were quite gung-ho in declaring the first two cites as "on mosquitoes" and "on terrorism" (which actually is not a problem, as long they use the alternative terms), you surely failed to mention that the third source is called Geography of the South Asian Subcontinent. Maybe it's just a coincidence. Or maybe you were examplifying WP:CHERRY for my understanding. Either way, misquoting the sources is not a good way to win arguments, or demonstrate good faith. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You need to read WP:SYNTH which say "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." You are exactly doing this.

I am not misquoting any sources but you are surely misrepresenting sources by claiming what isn't even supported by them. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" - where did that happen?
• "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source" - where did that happen?

Please note, to make it easier to understand what these lines mean WP:SYNTH has some explanation and examples. You may try reading those before replying.

As for misquoting sources, I will repeat what I already posted: By the way I just noticed that you wrote "Clearly, the author is looking for South Asia, not Indian subcontinent which does not include Afghanistan."... indeed, the author was clearly "looking for South Asia" (whatever that means) when he wrote on page 17, "The South Asian Subcontinent is also desccribed as the Indian Subcontinent." I also couldn't help noticing that while you were quite gung-ho in declaring the first two cites as "on mosquitoes" and "on terrorism" (which actually is not a problem, as long they use the alternative terms), you surely failed to mention that the third source is called Geography of the South Asian Subcontinent.

Thanks again.(BTW, this looks like a case for and RfC or DRN. That's not very congenial, is it? I really hoped to have a constructive discussion here.) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes there is only one source which is actually describing the connection, but even that one is looking for the term "South Asia", not "Indian subcontinent" I agree that it seems we are being repetitive but really don't think RfC or DRN can help. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"Yes there is only one source which is actually describing the connection" - did you misquote that source or not? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has moved to the RfC right below. Please make any further comments there. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

A very long RfC, I hope it doesn't get ignored

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion is very unfocused and the RfC questions were mostly ignored by the majority of participants except for the narrow question of inclusion of Afghanistan and Myanmar in the lead's definition of the subcontinent. The result of that discussion is that there is no consensus on this narrow point. WP:NOCONSENSUS results in reverting proposed text to the version before the proposal. As clearly as can be determined from the edit history, this proposal grows out of an edit war over the inclusion of the phrase, "...although the latter term is used typically as a political term and is also used to sometimes include Afghanistan and Myanmar." The prior version, therefore, would exclude this phrase. Attempts to focus on the other issues raised should be addressed through much more narrowly-defined discussions. A thorough reading of WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:WRFC is recommended. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

---

There's an edit war happening at this article by editors who are not participating in any discussion despite repeated requests. The last revert happened right after this RfC was opened (still no participation, only revert). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Questions

The case is stated below. Against this case there are few questions:

1. Since there is a list of countries that belong to region in the lead, is it alright to include "Maldives, and rarely Afghanistan and Myanmar" into that list?

   Three editors, constantly reverting and never discussing, are saying it doesn't (in edit summaries).

2. If not, do they belong in the article?

   Three editors, constantly reverting and never discussing, are actually removing it from the article altogether, and not just the lead while pretending they are removing it just from the lead.}}

3. Does alternative names for the subject belong in the article, if not the lead ("Asian Subcontinent", the "Indian Subcontinent", or the "Indo-Pak subcontinent", as well as India or Greater India in the classical and pre-modern sense")? (Redacted) Not in discussion anymore.

   The same three editors are removing it repeatedly while pretending they are removing only the names of Maldives, Afghanistan and Myanmar from the lead.

4. Does "The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" is often used interchangeably to denote the region" belong to the article?

   The same three editors are removing it repeatedly while pretending they are removing only the names of Maldives, Afghanistan and Myanmar from the lead.

Any comment? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Behavioural questions Is it okay for the same group of editors to: Constantly post dishonest edit summaries? Use personal attacks in the edit summaries as a smear campaign? Use reverting as an alternative to discussion (especially in an article under DS)? ... 5 reverts and 0 discussion (all of them aware of DS) and a declaration to continue edit warring The WP:TEAM is quite self declared along with more smear and a clear awareness of policies (despite complete disregard for them). Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC) (added) I couldn't also help noticing that this group of editors, despite being new to Wikipedia, shows remarkable similrity in editing (example: 01, 02, 03), and have been accused of being each other's socks/meats, as well as of disruptive edits, over many noticeboards and talk pages (some example: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05). Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Case A very interesting thing is happening to this article: On 7th September, ArvindPalaskar removed some cited and sourced material: It has also been called the "Asian Subcontinent", the "Indian Subcontinent", or the "Indo-Pak subcontinent", as well as India or Greater India in the classical and pre-modern sense. Edit summary: "WP:UNDUE terms. Greater India & South Asia further have their definitions." Note 1: It came shortly after I tagged Rockgod01's edit for citation. Note 2: The sentence that was remove by ArvindPalaskar was already in the article as two different sentences (one repeated twice). I merged the two sentences, cutting off some fat and removed the repeat. Reverted by me with a request to maintain status quo. Refactored the material to address the issue raised. Gone into discussion. On 8 September, Santoshsatvik removed that part again, along with a bit more: The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" is often used interchangeably to denote the region. Edit summary: "lets discuss this new edit first" Note 1: Came immediately after I tagged Rockgod01's further edit that added more unsourced material without addressing those tagged (none were ever addressed). Note 2: The sentence that removed by Santoshsatvik was already in the article three times. I reduced redudancy and removed two shortly before the disputes started. Reverted by Kmzayeem. Gone into discussion. On 14th September, Xerxes931 removed both the sentences removed earlier and removed a bit more: Maldives, and rarely Afghanistan and Myanmar. Edit summary: "Per the Talk, doesn’t belong in the lead, already explained further down" Reverted by me with an inviation to the discussion (Xerxes931 didn't participate). Gone into discussion (elsewhere). In two hours, Foxhound03 removed that part again. Edit summary: "Aditya Kabir (talk) This is a controversial inclusion, if you feel that it must be included, it should be placed elsewhere and definitely not in the lead of the article which is next to a map and list of countries which mentions neither of the two countries." Foxhound03 was invited to work towards a consensus but didn't participate in the discussions. Reported to ANB. On 15th September, Deepfriedokra protected the page from any edit for 2 days, reverting it to the wrong version (I love that epithet). On 17th September the protection was over. On 21 September, Farmoneyy removed as much Foxhound03 did, along with more citations from other parts of the article. Edit summary: "Afghanistan should not be listed in the beginning but its occasional inclusion should be explained further below (my conclusion from talk page)" Reverted by me with an inviation to the discussion. Farmoneyy haven't participated yet. 13 minutes later, reverted by شاه عباس. Edit summery: "Aditya Kabir (talk) too specific to be included in lead. this looks like the obsessive editing of one person" Reverted again by me with a request to the discussion. شاه عباس haven't participated yet. Gone to Deepfriedokra's talk page and asked for a look at the situation. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Comments The sh*tty part is that "I" happen to be the only person who is still in the discussion (Santoshsatvik left in 11 September, and ArvindPalaskar left in 15 September, while rejecting the idea of taking the discussion to an RfC or a DRN). I also am the only person personally attacked in the edit summaries. And I also made three of the 10 reverts made since ArvindPalaskar's edit. Looks like my personal war, though I believe I have stayed within every single WP policy and guideline (I may be wrong though). The interesting part is all of the editors disputing the content have kept removing increasing amount of material, all containing completely different information, and kept pretending that all were covered by the discussion for the first removal, which removed the least amount of material. The last one that accused me of a personal agenda removed the maximum amount. The sh*tty part is so sh*tty that one of the editors Deepfriedokra suggested me to go to, Vanamonde93, observed "as far as I can see, those terms were not in the lead prior to your involvement in the article". I promised to address that here: well, when I made my first edit to this article after years (as well as thousands of prior edits by other editors), all of the sentences were already there. I only added the most well sourced and and well cited two words to it, "Indo-Pak subcontinent", while reducing five sentences to three. Well as far as I understand, these two sentences are perfectly in compliance of every Wikipedia standard (my understanding only, could be wrong), and almost all the opposition are in violation of multiple policies and guidelines. At that I may have done the right thing. But I am pretty sure I didn't do it the right way. Since this is not my personal battle to fight, I hope I can get the community involved to help this reach a consensus (may be three consensus, because this is about three different things disguised as one). Now pinging the editors I was advised to ask for help: Sitush, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, and Vanamonde93. I have completely run out of depth, and am highly doubtful of my own conduct. If you find me guilty of anything, I stand guilty already. Please... this needs serious outside intervention. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC) This is an invalid RfC, see WP:RFCST: there is no statement and no timestamp. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC) @Redrose64: Really!! Dang. I thought ghere was a timestamp at the end of the case, which is the statement. Is that inappropriate? What would make it valid? A section called "statement" with a timestamp? Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC) The timestamp at the end of the case wouldn't have helped. The presence of the "Case" subheading itself would have screwed the RfC listing entry, even if other problems had been addressed. If that were removed, the statement would then have been something like 9,900 bytes long, which is a long way from being brief, and Legobot would have rejected it outright. But these edits have had this effect, so Thank you for that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Update The number of removals now stand at 11 (from the 10 I posted above), the number of discussion participation still zero. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Update 2 The revert warriors continue to edit the article, still zero discussion. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC) This isn't a creative writing competition. The purpose of this RFC is not clear *at all* --Xerxes931 (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Ending disruption is purpose enough. Please, do not make personal attacks your signature style. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC) @Aditya Kabir: I think the RfC should ask "Should Afghanistan and the Maldives be included in the lead" and "Should 'Used interchangably with South Asia' be included in the lead" or something to that effect. That should cover the disputed text, unless I have been mistaken. I haven't been around since my WP:SYNTH, so I could be wrong. --Danre98(talk^contribs) 19:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC) @Danre98: The problem is that these edit warriors have not removed country names from the lead, they removed it from article altogether. But they are pretending that they are removing it only from the lead. The amount of lies and fake comments they are thrwoing is muddling up this further. Also there are progressively more and more information removed, though they are pretending that they are removing the same information. It is so distressing to see thie team in action. Any idea how to frame it in one or two questions? Added questions. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No discussion

Since there is no discussion or consensus building or presentation of arguments by the PoV team, I guess, it is alright to reinstate the following in the lead per WP:NOCONSENSUS:

Geopolitically, the Indian subcontinent includes all or part of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, as well as Maldives, and rarely Afghanistan and Myanmar.

...per WP:BALANCE

The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are often used interchangeably to denote the region.

...per WP:OTHERNAMES

Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Aditya. Afghanistan (at least its eastern area, including its largest city, Kabul) has often been included in the Indian subcontinent (and Greater India). Historically, Kabul and eastern Afghanistan was part of ancient Gandhara (part of ancient India) and from the 16th to the 18th century, Kabul was mostly ruled from the Indian Mughal Empire which was centered at Delhi. Khestwol (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Khestwol this isn't where you provide your opinion in regards to the information presented. The purpose of this RFC (although it takes a while to discern because of the lack of clarity) is to determine whether or not this information should be included in the lead section or not. That is to say: whether it is important enough and bears enough weight to be the first thing a reader sees when clicking on this article. شاه عباس (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• firmly disagree with including Afghanistan in the lead. The information is controversial and of uncertain nature. Just by judging by the fact that such a strong opposition has spontaneously risen to its inclusion one can see the reason for why it should not be included. This information is not accepted by all sources and the lead should be for the information that is certain and unequivocal, the rest is part of the discussion of the topic not its introduction. شاه عباس (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finally joining the discussion. It is never too late. About the reason for opposition, I would like to remind that "such a strong opposition has spontaneously risen" either is a misunderstanding of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY or of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND (though a lot of edit summaries assumed it to be a battle, with even declarations of continuing the war). It is seriously not about a WP:TEAM rising to uphold the WP:TRUTH. Faith in people-power over encyclopedic standards may be bit misplaced here.

"The information is controversial". To whom? The team that assumed reverting as an alternative to discussion? "This information is not accepted by all sources". Really? Is that argument? The sources, respectable and reliable, clearly says Afghanistan is a part of Indian subcontinent, while the article tones it down a lot by including rarely. I am sure you don't want generally or always instead. And I hope you don't want never as that would be seriously WP:ORIGINAL, with all those sources and more telling otherwise. "lead should be for the information that is certain and unequivocal" – I didn't get where that standard came from (or what you really mean by it), but curious to know if it is coming from . Is it?

But thanks for talking and not reverting. It is definitely an refreshing change in events. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. In accordance to WP:LEAD, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." Now, this is not about my personal feeling towards the use of this or that adverb. This is about encyclopedic honesty in regards to presenting a topic from a "neutral point of view".

• The inclusion of Afghanistan breaches neutrality in several ways. First of all, the lack of unequivocal inclusion in the sources cited in the article as a whole breaches the principle that the opening paragraph is reserved for context and "facts". As the occasional inclusiveness of Afghanistan means that it lies on shaky foundation and not foundations of certainty and distinction. The picture presented furthermore, as argued before by others, does not highlight Afghanistan in any way, which means the lead will have internal contradictions if Afghanistan is included literally but not visually.
• Part of encyclopedic honesty (I don't think it is necessary to point towards specific legislation here) is to follow consensus of the 'encyclopedians' involved. In regards to this, there was already a consensus reached in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_subcontinent#Afghanistan which clearly is not being followed thoroughly or faithfully here.
• Obsessive and inconsiderate reverting and participating in numerous edit warring incidents, both on this page and on pages recently edited by your 'opponents" on pages with little to no relevance to your general habits of editing, show that perhaps you are not engaging in this affair with good faith. By doing what I cited above, you have shown that you have been stalking the activities of the parties opposing your POV in this article, and bringing the matter (which, for some reason, you appear to be taking personally) elsewhere on the encyclopedia, and providing little reasoning for doing so. Under wikipedia's internal legislature this is Hounding.

Moreover, nobody is arguing over the complete exclusion of Afghanistan in the article. As the article now stands, Afghanistan is talked about further down in a quite detailed section that perfectly suffices. It is unclear and vague why this state of affairs should undergo any alterations. Regards. شاه عباس (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I will, for now, ignore the breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK that make up your comment. I also will ignore that your comment is netither about the topic in discussion, nor about the comment I made, rather it is about an editor you don't like.

Let me address the only bit about Wikipedia content and guideline you address – WP:LEAD. Please note that the sentence you cherrypicked is followed by "It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states that the list covers "harmful aspects of human activity on the biophysical environment"."

Which means, if a list of countries are there, it will be a comprehensive list. Which also means, if something is "rearely included" by RS it will be not become "never included" because a couple of editors want it to be that way, even if they form a WP:TEAM.

The image that you think dictates WP guidelines, was put there by one of your team members, and signifies nothing. The consensus you talk about is just one of your team members editor vehemently protesting, which doesn't imply a WP:CONSENSUS even remotely. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

In regards to the only thing you said about the article: you hyperbolic usage of "never included" betrays a basic logical fallacy. The lack of an affirmative proposition does not equal a negative assumption. Moreover, this absence of an affirmative (albeit it is not truly affirmative given that it is forwarded with "rarely") is later remedied in the same article under a different section. Otherwise, as already mentioned by myself and conveniently ignored by yourself nobody is arguing over the complete exclusion of Afghanistan.

You have not responded to the inevitability of internal contradiction in the lead section if Afghanistan is included, instead you have regarded this as just another conspiracy against you by a team. Is this really the level of honesty put forward? You have not justified your Hounding, and already are making baseless and futile accusations of teaming. I assume you have not read "Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team. Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. Care should be taken to frame assertions in an appropriate way, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our dispute resolution process." شاه عباس (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Now the reliable sources explicitly including Afghanistan in Indian subcontinent is "a lack of an affirmative proposition"! Interesting. As for your continued attack... may I offer WP:KETTLE? I am sure you have noticed how other editors voiced their opinion against the preference of your team, reverted edits by the team, and even prtected the article against the team. Play by the rules, please. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You have misread my comment. "Lack of an affirmative proposition" was referring to the exclusion of Afghanistan in the lead and how this is not the same as saying that "it is never included" as you have implied to be the argument of those opposing your POV. I will not respond to the "teaming" accusation, because it is hard to see it as anything other than a weak attempt not to be taken seriously at this point. Cheers. شاه عباس (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus was to not have Afghanistan listed in the infobox. Please do not misconstrue the discussion and/or my own comments. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Include both. I assume that the RfC is about these two sentences Geopolitically, the Indian subcontinent includes all or part of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, as well as Maldives, and rarely Afghanistan and Myanmar. The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are often used interchangeably to denote the region. Both should probably be included. The second sentence is important because the reader should know, up front, that the terms are often used interchangeably. The first sentence (Afghanistan and Myanmar) appears to be well sourced. The purpose of the lead is to succinctly explain what a topic covers and that includes accurately summarizing the boundaries of a geographical region and areas that are sometimes included should be mentioned. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Include both - per RegentsPark. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Include both, per RegentsPark. However, some compromise could be reached on the second sentence, around that "often". Could add more balance with something more like: "The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" may be used interchangeably to denote all or large parts of the region," where "large parts" is acknowledging that some people (e.g., these editors!) would disagree with some of the categorisation. DanHobley (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Include both as explained by RegentsPark and per MOS:INTRO. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Update The revert war continues, twice more since the RfC began. The self-declared TEAM is fulfilling their declared promise to continue edti warring. Interesting to see that it is possible on the Wikipedia to declare your TEAM and its disruptive intentions, and get away with it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Qualified oppose against the inclusion of alternative terms in existing form. Arvind Palaskar's claim about notability and general use of terms like Asian subcontinent, South Asian subcontinent or Indo Pak subcontinent isn't incorrect at all. These newly suggested terms have only found place in cherrypicked sources and are outpaced in prevalence by far if you use google results against existing name and aren't mentioned in sufficient frequency to be even noted on Wikipedia. These names are essentially induced by political views. Further overlooking WP:CONTEXT, the Greater India which refers to a distinct cultural region of Asia Pacific, too has been rendered as a name for the geographical entity by giving undue weight to a couple of sources. This term is best to be excluded for Indian subcontinent unless supported by at least 10 good sources. The article refers to geographical region which lies on Indo-Australian while South Asia is for a geopolitical region. Since the partition of India, citizens of Pakistan (which became independent of British India in 1947) and Bangladesh (which became independent of Pakistan in 1971) often perceive the use of "Indian subcontinent" as offensive and suspicious because of the dominant placement of India in the term.

Essentially yes, I don't see Aditya emphasising and bringing this undue quagmire on this page constructive in any way. These terms are best mentioned as suggested or very rare names as mentioning those as alternative names gives readers a false notion that these terms have significant use in general what they don't have at all. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Furthermore, Oppose for inclusion of Afghanistan in lead. Inclusion of Afghanistan is the core difference between very definitions of South Asia and Indian subcontinent. Unduly emphasing its rare mentions is just righting great wrongs unless there are sources that essentially emphasise inclusion of Afghanistan into Indian subcontinent (emphasise because existing sources emphasise its exclusion). Except for Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, all other countries being pushed here have highly ambiguous status. It is thus quite safe to use GDP, population and area of these countries only for infobox. Indian subcontinent is a more tightly defined term than South Asia and largely certain to its references. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Two "oppose" comments by one editor. That's new. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Those essentially are for two different concerns. Split them for degree of disagreement. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Are we trying to make Indian subcontinent a smaller version of South Asia? Otherwise why are we discussing GDP etc. out of nowhere? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Include both generally per Regentspark. The statement regarding Afghanistan, Maldives, and the like is well-sourced. A source emphasizing its exclusion can and should be mentioned in the article, but it does not preclude mentioning Afghanistan because other sources mention it in their discussion of the subcontinent. It just means that there is debate over its inclusion. The term "rarely" in and rarely Afghanistan signifies there is disagreement over whether it belongs. The South Asia statement is also well sourced. It may be incorrect, but what reliable sources say is more important than our own opinions. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Afghanistan’s inclusion, like we did on earlier Consensuses[1]. Aditya is WP:CHERRYPICKING sources that mention Afghanistan as a border territory or “sometimes” included in the definition. however after reading through all the opinions and thinking about it for a while I changed my view a little bit regarding the Myanmar and “south Asia and Indian subcontinent sometimes used interchangeably“ part though. A quick search among academic scholarly books will give you only the core nations with Myanmar and Indian ocean Islands mentioned:
  • (page 1) 1.1 Introduction of Tectonics of the Indian Subcontinent Core nations + additional nations are mentioned but not Afghanistan
  • [2] Core nations are only mentioned + additional nations are mentioned but again not Afghanistan
  • [3] Core nations are only mentioned + additional nations are mentioned but again not Afghanistan
  • [4]“Afghanistan is disconnected from the subcontinent and considers itself a Central asian nation that connect Central asia to South Asia” page 33

And this can go on……….

However we can include Afghanistan below in other sections, my intentions are definitely not the complete exclusion of the two sentences. As long as it is not in the core definition in the lead and well sourced then it is alright academically. Scarcely Khestwol’s proposal how to do it is just nonsense(Kabul part of Gandhara, seriously ?) . Especially, the part “South Asia and the Subcontinent are often interchangeable” should be clearly mentioned(even though it’s complicated with the SAARC and Afghanistan again since Afghanistan only recently joined for economic reasons but that’s why we have the term “often” or maybe we can say “sometimes”, either way it shouldn’t just say “are used interchangeably”). What do you think ? @RegentsPark: @Danre98: Xerxes931 (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

When a source explicitly and unambiguosly says something, it is not cherrypicking the source (read the page you linked). BTW, what earlier consensus are you talking about? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Aman.kumar.goel. This is factually incorrect and also WP:UNDUE. Article is not supposed to mix up South Asia and Indian subcontinent but define how Indian subcontinent stands as a separate concept. Santosh L (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• My understanding is that culturally, Afghanistan is not within the subcontinent, but geologically, the portion of Afghanistan that's to the southeast of the Hindu Kush would be within it.—S Marshall T/C 14:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• I think you'll find it's more complicated than that, so I recommend separate sentences. For example, several editors have read the existing proposal as if the word rarely weren't in the sentence at all. It's my experience that Wikipedia editors pay more attention than others, so if they're skipping that word, then we should assume that a busy/distracted reader will get it wrong. The solution is to write more sentences. Imagine a paragraph that begins, "_____ are the core countries" followed by a completely separate sentence that says something like, "Usually, _____ are excluded, although sometimes they are included, especially for geological purposes". The two things that this achieves are: (1) most people will end up with an answer that is applicable to whatever they're reading, and (2) it emphasizes the exclusion of Afghanistan while acknowledging that there is disagreement about the 'correct' place to draw the line (e.g., depending upon whether you're talking about politics or Plate tectonics). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

DanHobley and WhatamIdoing Thanks for the suggestions. I am sure we can work out something in those lines. Initially my concern was to keep the sentence with a list of countries short (as is probably due for a non-political geographical/geological entity). But that shortness may not be the best way to go. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Solution 1 (now rejected)

The following looks like the consensus above.

• Break down the first sentence, and keep the seven countries commonly included in the lead:

Generally, the Indian subcontinent includes all or part of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, as well as Maldives.

• Move the rare inclusions into some other section per Xerxes931 (I propose the Geopolitics section), and make the rarity obvious per WhatamIdoing:

Albeit rarely, some authors also include Afghanistan and Myanmar in the Indian subcontinent.

• No objection to the following remaining in the lead, now toned down per DanHobley:

The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are sometimes used interchangeably to denote the region.

Please, correct me if I am wrong. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a fair solution, however don’t you think this text about Afghanistan in the geopolitical section already covers your suggestion: “Afghanistan, despite often being considered as a part of South Asia, is usually not included in the Indian subcontinent.[40] Even when some parts of Afghanistan are sometimes included in the Indian subcontinent as a boundary territory between Central Asia and northwestern parts of the Indian subcontinent, the socio-religious history of Afghanistan are related to the Turkic-influenced Central Asia.[51][52] The Maldives, a country consisting of a small archipelago southwest of the peninsula, is considered part of the Indian subcontinent.[53]“ Xerxes931 (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This is confusing. How can the two terms be interchangeable when one does not include Afghanistan? The wording which Aditya initially suggested seems better. Khestwol (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Ehhhm, that text I quoted was written by Aditya... Also the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, not always. Xerxes931 (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Xerxes931: I was thinking of putting the line after "The precise definition of an "Indian subcontinent" in a geopolitical context is somewhat contested as there is no globally accepted definition on which countries are a part of South Asia or the Indian subcontinent. Whether called the Indian subcontinent or South Asia, the definition of the geographical extent of this region varies." Along with the fact that some sources, including the IMF, consider Maldives to be outside the Indian subcontinent, though rarely. I also have the geological context of Maldives ready in my sandbox. The broader Myanmar context is yet to be researched. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Aditya Kabir I am fine with that suggestion of you, however let the previous statement of you about the Afghanistan untouched. We can discuss a merge of this article with South Asia as RegentsPark suggested elsewhere, for the first we need to find a solution for this. Xerxes931 (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge discussion happened long time back with consensus that this article is about the geological/geograpical entity and South Asia is about the political/geopolitical entity. That is why this one doesn't require the continent infobox. The difference between these two entities is not Afghanistan. It is the difference between geology and politics. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I shouldn't have brought that up :). Let's table the merge for the time being because this is complicated enough as it is. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Solution 2

• I'm not sure about this. My preference would be to include both in the lead. Perhaps as follows: the Indian subcontinent includes all or part of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Maldives. Afghanistan and Myanmar are also sometimes included. The problem is that the term is a mess of geology, geography, and political identities and these regions, particularly Afghanistan, have strong historical ties with the region. The second problem is that, by having separate articles on South Asia and the Indian subcontinent, we're twisting ourselves into knots trying to explain the difference, when the differences in usage are almost non-existent. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This seems a good solution. Khestwol (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

How about Generally, the Indian subcontinent includes all or part of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, as well as Maldives. Albeit rarely, some authors also include Afghanistan and Myanmar.? A tad too wordy, but still safer. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Aditya I am OK with this one too. Seems balanced. Khestwol (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A bit wordy, but sure. I'm fine with it. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@شاه عباس, Kautilya3, Danre98, Aman.kumar.goel, Kmzayeem, Santoshsatvik, S Marshall, DanHobley, and WhatamIdoing: Any further input on this? Looks like we are close to a closure. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No further input. I am ok with all the solutions proposed in this section. All this seems to me to be much ado about nothing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Have no objection to the solution. Although if you ask me, a permanent solution would be to merge this article with South Asia as discussed below. There could be further opposition in future against including Afghanistan as part of Indian subcontinent. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Another observation

Extended content

Comment: Sorry, I did not see this earlier. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) Third Edition, 2009, (not Oxford Dictionary of English, which is a much shorter dictionary), the ultimate arbiter of the English language, especially British and Commonwealth usage, says this: "Indian subcontinent n. the part of Asia south of the Himalayas which forms a peninsula extending into the Indian Ocean between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, now divided between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Also used with wider application to include Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The term is roughly equivalent to South Asia, esp. in the wider use, although Indian subcontinent is sometimes considered to be more of a geophysical description, and South Asia more geopolitical. Attested examples of usage: 1905 Times 10 Nov. 5/1 The busy harbour [of Bombay]..has become the chief centre of direct communication between Europe and the Indian sub-continent. 1975 K. Katzner Langs. of World ii. 199 Tamil..is spoken principally in the state of Tamil Nadu (formerly Madras), located on the eastern coast and extending down to the southernmost tip of the Indian subcontinent." It is clear in these examples, that in the primary sense, Sri Lanka and the Maldives are not part of the subcontinent (Colombo was just as busy a port as Bombay; the southernmost tip of the subcontinent speaks Tamil, not Sinhalese or Dhivehi.) In my experience, there is a general tendency in Indian publications to expand the geographical extent of the "Indian subcontinent," a vaguely defined 19th-century or early 20th-century term, and to prefer it to the more neutral "South Asia," which references regions of a large continent. As for "Greater India," except for specialty usage geophysics, it is now mostly an outdated term, popular once with nationalistic linguists and cultural historians of India (in the 20s and 30s). I'm surprised that all this is being discussed again. I had thought these issues had been resolved long ago. Also: Afghanistan and (especially not Burma) have never been a part of the Indian subcontinent, except perhaps in outliers (among usage) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC) (Edit conflict) While I can totally agree to you, I still can see a few problems here: Almost every source (RS or not) that provides a list of countries that belong to the Indian subcontinent includes Sri Lanka (apart from OED), and, apart from a handful, also Maldives. Some also include Afghanistan and Myanmar (not necessarily Indian sources). The article cites some of those sources. It would be difficult to maintain that the ultimate arbiter of English is also the ultimate arbiter of geography (political or otherwise). If the subcontinent is defined only as a peninsula, then Nepal and Bhutan may become ineligible for inclusion. If it is defined as the land part of the Indian plate, then Sri Lanka and Maldives, as well as parts of Afghanistan and Myanmar fit fine. The coinage came from the Brits during their imperial times, and is interpreted slightly differently by different acedemics and commentators. The article describes some of the arguments around the term. The inclusion of WP:OTHERNAMES seems to be the right thing to do on the Wikipedia, irrespective of how we judge the names. I have edited the Greater India article for a long time to be aware that the term is neither applied exclusively to the Subcontinent nor is widely used anymore. But neither warrants an exclusion of the term. Time magazine and Katzner may be very clear, but they are not explicit, and perhaps not as clear as a plain list of countries described as part of Indian subcontinent. A lot many sources provide that list rather explicitly, without a need to take leaps in reasoning. I am sure we can smooth out these kinks out of our discussion/decision pretty easily. And, hey, thanks for joining. By the way, I had proposed to merge South Asia and Indian subcontinent quite some time back, and had taken some flak for the attempt (telling so you know where my heart lies, but we play by the rules, aye?). Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Also the paragraph "Geologically, the Indian subcontinent ... Geographically, it is Geopolitically, the Indian subcontinent includes ..." should be removed in its entirety. It is both OR and Synthesis, witness the need for seven citations. It is not a good idea to conflate the "subcontinent" (a geographical synonym for the term "India" in British days) and Indian plate. Baluchistan is not on the Indian plate, but is in the subcontinent; Mustang in Nepal is not on the Indian plate, whether or not Nepal is in the Indian subcontinent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC) I guess the whole problem stemmed from the decision to keep two separate articles for the same entity - South Asia and Indian subcontinent. That definitely required a defination for the subcontinent, but unfortunately highly reputed sources are not in agreement. If we go by OED alone, then this needs to go to the Wiktionary, not here (WP:NOTDICTIONARY). I am fine with a merge. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC) I too believe that merging this article with South Asia is the best way forward. At least we all are in agreement that Afghanistan is part of South Asia. --Zayeem (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Another possibility

Extended content

In last eight weeks, Danre98, Xerxes931, Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark have spontaneously suggested a merger potential of Indian subcontinent into South Asia. Kmzayeem agrees. And I have tried a merger proposal already in the past. Perhaps there is reason enough discuss a merger again. If we again decide that Indian subcontinent is a geographical entity and South Asia is a geopolitical entity then we should seriously improve the geography/geology parts of the article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC) Not at all, both the terms have sufficient distinctions mentioned in their independent coverages that we will be botching the entire topic even if considering any merger. Article anyway needs great amount of expansion relevant to geography what isn't really a problem if someone decides to work upon it. For me as I told before, don't have time and I may take a while before I start editing again like before. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC) I think that we generally benefit from having separate articles about geology and politics, especially when the borders aren't identical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC) We also have Indian plate. That's supposed to be the geology part. Indian subcontinent and South Asia are used interchangeably in practice, with modern usage trending toward South Asia. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC) A merge at first seems like a good idea, however in a merged article the eternal on going discussions and edit wars about Afghanistan(not only the recent incidents, this happens regularly) will escalate even more, because Afghanistan is included in the South Asia article in the core definition ( which I don’t necessarily agree with but that’s another topic for itself) but it isn’t included in the core definition of the Indian subcontinent, how would we handle that ? That’s why I think for the first we shouldn’t merge, however we should merge Indian Plate into Indian subcontinent. Xerxes931 (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus?

Looks like we have a consensus to include the following in the lead:

Generally, the Indian subcontinent includes all or part of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, as well as Maldives.Albeit rarely, some authors also include Afghanistan and Myanmar. The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are sometimes used interchangeably to denote the region.

If we don't have any other objection that was already not discussed, I probably should edit the text into the article. This has gone on for too long. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

An RFC usually goes for at least 30 days if there isn’t a unanimously consensus, which is far from being the case here. I still stand by what I said that Afghanistan doesn’t deserve a mention in the lead but instead should be discussed further below as it already is, which you actually also agreed to and you can also of course expand that section below. This version you suggest now is basically almost the same as the initial version with “rarely” , the user who agreed to this are only the ones who were also already agreeing to that version, the other users against it already had left their opinion on it in the RFC, so you can’t expect everybody to respond the same thing to a statement which they already disagreed to but with only a word changed(just an albeit before the rare) Xerxes931 (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. An RfC can go on for 30 days before going stale. And in case of WP:NOCONSENSUS the article is supposed be go back to the WP:WRONGVERSION, the version before the disputes started (which means re-instating the information without the tweaks). But ofcourse there can be another RfC, or even a DRN. I would prefer to get out of this with a consensus, which neither needs to be unanimous, nor win a majority vote. Ideally an uninvolved admin can decide if there is a consensus or not, at the end of the 30 days. If needed we can resort to requesting a WP:CLOSURE.

By the way, the version you opposed to have been proposed on October 3. You have commented in the discussion on October 8 without any mention of the proposal (which was supported by more than half the participating editors by that time). You commented only after I proposed to incorporate the text into the article, after waiting a while to see if someone disagrees (I even pinged dissenting editors to comment). I hope nobody sees this as a WP:STONEWALL.

I would stick to WP:AGF for now, and request that you state the reason for your opposition. It is understood that Afghanistan is not generally included, but why stating exactly that should be excluded from the lead? Please, don't go posting cites, again, to prove Afghanistan doesn't belong, that's beyond the point here. Other users who oppose are also invited to state their reasons. I hope the reasons will be as valid, if not more.

And... just in case, this RfC has about eight days to run out of time. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Everything from the opposition has been already mentioned, you can read through it again User:شاه عباس also already made some good valid point why it doesn’t belong into the lede, why do you want everyone to re-write their comments now? Also if I remember correctly you more or less tended to agree about not including Afghanistan in the lede but instead elaborating on its ambiguous geography further below, mind if I ask why that changed again ? Xerxes931 (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I agrred to anything that had the agreement of a large number of editors, with valid reasons, including yours. That doesn't make your POV any more special than others. Stop repeating "you agreed", it is an absolutely lame reason to include or exclude something in an article. As for the very good valid point by شاه عباس, isn't it apparent that you can agree only to the lone editor who is on your side of the dispute? Do not WP:STONEWALL a discussion, that's not how you build consensus.

In fact, consensus requires an ability to agree to others, even if they don't agree to you. And you and شاه عباس clearly lack that ability. Also understand that two editors constantly protesting is no barrier to consensus. Also it is apparent that you have only one argument – posting cites to "prove" that most authors exclude Afghanistan – and that is so irrelevant a point here (everyone knows that, and that's what is written in the proposed text). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I would support this wording. It's factually accurate, and from the point of view of someone with no dog in the fight, an impartial way of phrasing it. In fact, I don't like the "albeit", as that is verging on editorialising. I would just leave "rarely". DanHobley (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If someone still have not commented, there are only five more days left for this RfC to go stale. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose including Afghanistan in the lead I strongly disagree with the inclusion of Afghanistan in the lead of this article. The framing of Afghanistan as apart of the subcontinent is very shaky. Subjective aspects to the Subcontinent's classifications are best left to be addressed in later sections of the article. The introductory lead paragraphs of this article should only contain definite information such as Pakistan's inclusion into the subcontinent, which is unanimously accepted among all commentators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arachosite (talk • contribs) 14:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Is that an Wikipedia guideline? I thought it was about being "accurate", "verifiable" and "relevant", not "unanimous". Almost nothing is unanimous in this world, not even biological evolution or existence of god. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose including Afghanistan in the lead for reasons stated before, the term Indian subcontinent is generally used for the area under the control of the British, which Afghanistan as a whole was certainly never a part of. This is the standard view politically speaking, for example the US census recognizes the subcontinent as beginning with Pakistan to the west, as it falls under the "Asian" racial category whilst Afghanistan under the "White" racial. Afghanistan is also not only considered as a Central Asian country, but also a Middle Eastern by the FBI and some institutes. Overall, its too distinct to be labelled as a part of the Indian subcontinent,it makes no sense to consider a Turkmen or Uzbek, for example, to belong to a so called Indian subcontinent and there isn't much of a case to include them in. Foxhound03 (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Racial category!!! Now that is really scientific. :D Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Lol. Though, I'm beginning to understand why, despite the preponderance of evidence that Afghanistan is often included in references to the Indian subcontinent, there is this aversion to saying so on Wikipedia! --RegentsPark (comment) 01:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

While the "no Afghanistan" block were busy fighting it out here (and in the past edit wars) to exclude Afghanistan, an annon had added it to the lead (along with BIOT), and no one noticed. It stayed there for days, until I removed it. Hilarious. By the way, the same block tried removing Afghanistan from South Asia and including it into Central Asia. Both unsuccessful. Perhaps righting the wrongs of the world on the Wikipedia is not as easy. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 01:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Foxhound03 is back with the mission to remove Afghanistan, the White-race country, from South Asia, the Dark-race region ([5] and [6]). That's a nice never-give-up spirit. Could continue until a topic ban someday.

By the way, if this not closed with a consensus then the article goes back to state before the war as per policies. That means concessions made to the contentious sentences will not be accomodated. We have waited three months for a consensus (over three discussion threads), long enough to apply WP:NOCONSENSUS. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 11:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if you really understood how things went down, but if there is no consensus the article indeed goes back to the status quo/the initial version, which is the version prior to you edits, as all of this only became a thing due to your forcefully putting in things into the article without any consensus. Is this your first RFC? Xerxes931 (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. It was there in 2019 and 2018 too. Since you are so hung up on the dishonest notion that I put that in, shall I remove the part I wrote about how Afghanistan may not be a part of the Subcontinent? Shall I also reinstate the repeated inclusion of Afghanistan before I made the edits? Do not mock someone else's efforts to keep up your WP:STONEWALLING and WP:POVPUSHING. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 21:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

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

Afghanistan is also a part of Indian subcontinent

Afghanistan 🇦🇫 is also a part of Indian subcontinent. ShikaDikaMika (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@ShikaDikaMika: please read the thread above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The Indian subcontinent usually is used interchangeably with South Asia but the Indian subcontinent usually refers to the part of south asia that was a part of British Raj after WW2. As the British never fully controlled Afghanistan it isn't technically a part of the Indian subcontinent. However it is included in South Asia Pappu pistawl wala (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC about a disputed sentence

Does the sentence "Albeit rarely, some authors also include Afghanistan and Myanmar." belong to the article? Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 23:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

RfC about another disputed sentence

Does the sentence "The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are sometimes used interchangeably to denote the region." belong to the article? Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 01:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources