Talk:Indian subcontinent

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

Reverts[edit]

Human3015, please use the talk page to discuss the map instead of engaging in abuse of Twinkle and blanket reverting anyone you do not agree with. The reasons for the change of map are specified. You should not engage in 3RR, especially when there are two users opposing you. Mar4d (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, both the maps showing national boundaries are problematic, the original one because it seems to be Indian Government POV and the second one because it omits the smaller countries of the subcontinent. The current one (I hope it remains current) without national borders is the best so far. But please keep looking! Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind an edited version of the previous map if it shows all boundaries (or no boundaries). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And I'm still wondering how I'm still unblocked, but I'm agree with Mar4d's that Map without Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Bhutan. Because he has made consensus on talk page with all editors who watch this page. But some of you may not get agree on map of Indian subcontinent without Nepal and Sri Lanka. But sorry guys, "consensus" is big deal. --Human3015 17:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
What consensus? What are you talking about? Aditya(talkcontribs) 17:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir: Consensus has ben made here. Because Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Bhutan are not "core" parts of Indian subcontinent. Only India, Bangladesh and Pakistan are "core" part of Subcontinent. If you disagree with me, then prove that Nepal is "core" part of subcontinent.--Human3015 17:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I see. Please don't claim that a "consensus" has been reached unless it is reported on the article talk page. (User talk pages are ok to resolve two-way disputes privately. But you should include a summary on the article talk page when an agreement is reached.)
I don't agree that there is any issue of "core" vs "non-core" countries in the subcontinent. If the map doesn't show the area that we need to show, then the map is faulty. We can live with it if that is all we can manage at present. But we should aim to get the correct map eventually. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there was any consensus there either other than unilateral WP:SOUP without any affirmation from any one else on edits in question, but I guess this map will do for now... I agree with adding a full, NPOV map. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't find a consensus in there. Who agreed to you? Aditya(talkcontribs) 18:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3, you always give nice views, you are ideal editor, but see, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives were never part of Mughal Empire of Akbar or Maurya empire of Ashoka, so how they can be "core" part of Indian subcontinent?? I can be wrong. Maybe I have less knowledge of subject. --Human3015 18:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The article refers to the three countries which form the core, I'm not making any of this up. Add sources saying otherwise if you want to prove it, as per WP:RS. Sri Lanka, Maldives etc. are island countries and not connected to the mainland. I am not sure about Nepal and Bhutan, but historically, both these countries were treated separate from British India. That's why I think we should have a map where Pakistan, India, Bangladesh are shaded in dark, and Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan etc. can be shaded in light to show the extended definition. If someone can make a map, feel free to upload. Mar4d (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Now time has changed, we have to see Geography from eyes of History, if anyone has British India map, please upload here as Indian subcontinent, I think Goa was having Portugal rule, mark it in light shades as "extended" territory of Indian subcontinent. --Human3015 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Friends, please note that, my all comments here regarding "addition of map with British India/Mughal Empire/Maurya Empire/Goa etc were pure form of Sarcasm, here Mar4d nominated me for block for my reverts on this page, and I accepted my mistake there, but he don't accepts his mistakes, earlier he replaced current map with this map and he were justifying this map by saying only India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are core part of Indian subcontinent. So my comments were just sarcasm and I'm happy with current map. I may get blocked and I may not edit anymore for few days, and I request all editors here to watch some pages carefully for vandalism, specially pages related to Kashmir conflict. Thank you. --Human3015 19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This discussion could've been had after the initial revert, per WP:BRD, rather than continue the warring, j/s. Sadly, while I see your point that the boundaries are in dispute and the current map is a clever way to get around that, it's also not as useful. TBH, geographic maps are annoying, a As you said in the WP:EWN, "(...) all definitions agree that Pakistan, India and Bangladesh form the 'core' of the subcontinent; the other countries (Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives etc.) are usually only described in extended definitions. If there is a better map that shows the three countries in dark and the extended countries in lighter shade, that would be the best map." Sadly, I can't find anything like that on google, let alone find one that's within licensing policies. I'll admit I'm not too knowledgeable about these disputed territories. Maybe we could put together an agreed upon set of requirements for this map and submit it at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop ? ― Padenton|   07:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We call America America not USA-sia[edit]

Why not call India India Or Europe West Asia 82.8.231.230 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not register as a user and read some reliable sources? Do you know of Bharata Khanda and Bharata Varsha? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The western limits and Meaning[edit]

Due to another Wikipedian's 'doubt', I would like to elaborate on the reasoning behind this edit. Clearing up confusion over western limits of the subcontinent with sources and clarity is a necessary step in the path for this article's elevation. It is my request that any rebuttal or revision be accompanied by fact-based reasoning rather than personal doubt.

Consistency across Wikipedia articles, especially those dealing with physical geography, geology or other scientific areas, is an aim that we surely agree on. Difference between the terms 'subcontinent' and 'South Asia' is crucial here. When delineating a subcontinent, political, ethnic and cultural boundaries are not given importance. It is a term that refers to "parts of continents ... on different tectonic plates from the rest of the continent" according to WP's 'Continent' article. The South Asian subcontinent lies on upper portion of a distinct plate tectonic, with the article on 'Eurasian Plate' clearly defining it as one landmass which is not encompassed but rather bordered. A more detailed look at areas through which the Indian plate's western edge cuts (Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2010, US Geological Survey) reveals that plains of Indus basin, explicitly east of/below mountain ranges in Balochistan, FATA, KPK and G-B, rest on the plate whereas those mountainous regions do not. This plate boundary roughly coincides with the Indus river and western borders of Punjab and Sindh, excluding all other aforementioned provinces/territories near-completely.

Another factual and scientific basis for this assertion can be found in geographical limits of Ecozones. The northern and westernmost portion of Indomalaya ecozone is defined as being the Indian Subcontinent. In this definition as well, an area roughly corresponding to plate tectonics separates the subcontinent from Palearctic ecozone west of Indus river. We can therefore assert that in terms of natural wildlife, climate and general topography, plains of Punjab and Sindh differ significantly from highland/mountainous regions to their immediate west and north.

Hence, arguments from geology and natural science clearly establish that the Indian subcontinent ends at western edge of its associated plate (roughly corresponding to river Indus). This should be our primary focus since the term subcontinent is inherently descriptive of geography, and thus should be defined by geographic sciences, although sociological approaches based upon historic accounts of foreign travellers (such as Al-biruni, Ibn Battuta, etc.), ethno-linguistic groups and cultural domains through antiquity portray the Indus river as more than a natural boundary.

At the end, however, an article on Indian subcontinent should define it consistently with science-based articles that cite this term. Either all those articles mentioning it should be altered because one person may 'doubt' that they define it correctly, or its Total Area should reflect scientific consensus and sources that mark its western edge clearly as the Indus River and Indian Plate. Even this article's main picture draws a clear distinction between plains which are part of the subcontinent and elevated terrain that is not. Any views contrary to this are most welcome before hair trigger revisions.
R2d2 ka baap (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Indian continent and Indian plate are not interchangeable terms. Although Indian plate only covers a part of Pakistan, all historical references refer to prepartition Pakistan region as a whole a part of Indian subcontinent. Unless you have a reference negating that, there can't be a possibility where your edit would even remotely be eligible. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The argument being made now is of a 'historic' (socio-political) nature, and so it is established that the subcontinent at least in scientific terms does in fact end at the plate boundary. Now for your assertion without evidence that 'subcontinent' referred to the entire 'Pakistan region' (non-specific), I have provided a book reference at the end of fourth paragraph which indeed negates your misconception. Problem is, historic accounts do not refer to South Asia as 'subcontinent' which is a relatively recent scholarly term geared more towards a geological entity separated from the Eurasian landmass/plate by natural barriers, hence subcontinent. But the imperfect term that was used to refer to a so-called cultural or civilizational entity was 'Hindustan', even by European explorers before they exchanged it for 'India'. Now the basic etymology of that name from the Persian perspective whence it was coined, clearly and unambiguously in all sources refers to Hindustan as the land beyond Indus river. Unfortunately, the multidisciplinary evidence is so overwhelming that listing it all would be near impossible, although I have listed one as mentioned earlier had you cared to look. A note to this source shall be added, which makes use of the current term 'subcontinent' and its historical equivalent 'Hindustan'.
R2d2 ka baap (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The article already has a source, so my assertion is not without a source. If a source claims "Hindustan" to be a specific part of the subcontinent, that needs to be added to Hindustan. This page however states it pretty correctly. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The source in the introduction is a dictionary definition which does not contradict my stand. It refers to a 'peninsula' below the Himalayas and bounded by the ocean. Are mountain ranges in Balochistan, Northwest part of the same 'peninsula'? The region is divided by India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is not the same as including all of those lands (such as Andaman or Laccadive Islands). Moreover, it refers to the 'core lands' of these countries, not 'all lands', hence my stance is entirely consistent with the remaining article and its sources.
R2d2 ka baap (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Provide source for "Indian subcontinent" not for "Hindustan".--Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 20:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency you are both forgetting, between referring to the 'historic' argument for subcontinent and rejecting its equivalent term in sources. You do understand that historical sources of travellers have no such vocabulary of 'subcontinent'. It is a recent term that originated from the need to explain geographical isolation of this landmass from remaining Eurasia. You will not find foreign travellers to South Asia using the explicit term 'subcontinent', but rather 'Hindustan' or 'India' variously. The source in question similarly emphasizes that 'Hindustan' as quoted actually referred to the subcontinent in this context, and after equating the two, he goes on to explain the boundary of the subcontinent at the Indus river.
However, I shall provide another source among several others. Robert Kaplan states in The Revenge of Geography, "The Indian Subcontinent is ... defined on its its landward sides by the hard geographic borders of the Himalayas to the north, the Burmese jungle to the east, and the somewhat softer border of the Indus River to the west." This acknowledges the historic fact that Achaemenids and Sassanids treated the Indus river as the boundary of their domains, as well as the plateau west of it being considered part of the Iranian cultural continent. Mind you we are now arguing on the subcontinent as a socio-political construct, am glad you both refrained from arguing against it as an established fact of plate tectonics/geology.
Lastly, the article on 'Indus River' states "The lower basin of the Indus forms a natural boundary between the Iranian Plateau and the Indian subcontinent". In fact, this article's first source defines Indian subcontinent as "the part of Asia south of the Himalayas which forms a peninsula extending into the Indian Ocean". South of clearly implies it excludes the mountains of Himalayan range as well as other ranges in Northwest, like other definitions. In plain english, a peninsula cannot include land that has mountainous or starkly non-peninsular characteristics, whether it be in its northern limits or western limits. Don't protect a version riddled with contradictions. For the umpteenth time: consistency, folks.
R2d2 ka baap (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
R2d2 ka baap, I appreciate your comment. you have provided one source, but what about [1], one can give hundreds of reference stating that whole of Pakistan is part of Indian subcontinent. Moreover, you are saying "Hindustan=Indian subcontinent", ok, but we can also get numerous sources saying "South Asia=Indian subcontinent", [2] what about that? If we consider "South Asia" then even Afghan will be part of Indian subcontinent. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 23:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
1. I have already explained that dictionary reference earlier on (read above). Nowhere does it state the whole of Pakistan is part of the subcontinent, but merely that it is a "peninsula" region which is now divided between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Again, that it is divided between these countries is not the same as includes the entire territory of all these countries. Basic English comprehension. I'm sure you are aware that a large part of Pakistan is not peninsular plains but rather the opposite.
2. I am not saying Hindustan=Indian subcontinent. I said the source which you misinterpreted is actually putting a quote in context, and saying in that context Hindustan was referring to the 'subcontinent'. So only in that particular context were the two terms equated.
3. Numerous sources may say South Asia is interchangeable with the Indian subcontinent, but then that is why there is a separate Wikipedia article called South Asia which uses a broader definition to include Afghanistan and in some cases Iran. Whereas the subcontinent is always referred to as ending once mountainous regions beyond Indus river begin to form a distinct plateau. Show me a source which includes for example the hinterlands of Afghanistan as Indian subcontinent, whereas most probably include it in South Asia. In layman's terms, Indian subcontinent = distinct peninsula (including in your own provided oxford dictionary source), South Asia = broader geographic region with no natural barriers as such. Equating the two serves to obfuscate our discussion.
By the way, so far I have quoted at least two academic and scholarly sources. You've given me the Oxford dictionary (which you misread) and a BBC article indirectly quoting Zawahiri. I can't blame hazrat Zawahiri saheb for not knowing the nuanced differences between South Asia and Subcontinent, especially when neither of these English terms were probably ever spoken by him and when he is trying his best to avoid a friendly visit by predator drones.
R2d2 ka baap (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
read these [3], [4]--Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 00:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Both sources seem to support the position that the subcontinent 'drifted' on its tectonic plate and collided with the Eurasian landmass, thus reinforcing my argument from geology earlier. If you stand by these sources, therefore, you will have to concede that the subcontinent when it was drifting had its northwestern edge at the plate boundary. For your reference, here is the map which shows where that plate boundary is juxtaposed over political borders. Since we have switched from geological, socio-political and now back to geological perspective, is there any substantive proof in any of these areas that the plate boundary does not approximate the subcontinent's boundary?
R2d2 ka baap (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • This is from the article South Asia: The terms "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are used interchangeably.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] According to historians Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, Indian Subcontinent has come to be known as South Asia "in more recent and neutral parlance."[12] Indologist Ronald B. Inden argues that the usage of the term "South Asia" is getting more widespread since it clearly distinguishes the region from East Asia.[13] Some academics hold that the term "South Asia" is in more common use in Europe and North America, rather than the terms "Subcontinent" or the "Indian Subcontinent".[14][15]
refs
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference The_history_of_India was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Milton_Walter_Meyer_pages_1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Jim_Norwine_pages_209 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Judith_Schott_pages_274 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Raj_S._Bhopal_pages_33 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Lucian_W._Pye_pages_133 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mark_Juergensmeyer_pages_465 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sugata_Bose_pages_3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Boniface, Brian G.; Christopher P. Cooper (2005). Worldwide destinations: the geography of travel and tourism. Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-7506-5997-0. 
  10. ^ Shiv R. Jhawar, Building a Noble World, page 39, Noble World Foundation, 2004, ISBN 9780974919706
  11. ^ Erika Lee and Judy Yung, Angel Island: Immigrant Gateway to America, page xxiii, Oxford University Press, 2010, ISBN 9780199752799
  12. ^ Sugata Bose & Ayesha Jalal, Modern South Asia, pages 3, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 0415307872
  13. ^ Ronald B. Inden, Imagining India, page 51, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000, ISBN 1850655200
  14. ^ Judith Schott & Alix Henley, Culture, Religion, and Childbearing in a Multiracial Society, pages 274, Elsevier Health Sciences, 1996, ISBN 0750620501
  15. ^ Raj S. Bhopal, Ethnicity, race, and health in multicultural societies, pages 33, Oxford University Press, 2007, ISBN 0198568177

The point being, Indian subcontinent is not explicitly the area bordered by the Indus river. That would only be the Indian plate. Plus, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I've reverted you, do not reinstate this edit without consensus as that would be editwar after you've been made aware of the policies. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been watching this debate for a while without saying anything because there seemed to have been more heat than light. The term Indian subcontinent has always been used to refer to the former British India (minus Burma, but with the smaller States on the periphery). This is the useful notion of Indian subcontinent. Other uses, even if valid in some sense and appropriately sourced, are still pretty useless. So there is no point arguing about what is the "right" notion of Indian subcontinent. Let us drop this issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Topgun, not withstanding your threats, you have given me absolutely no new information by pointing to the South Asia article (in fact Human already tried that earlier). Once again, there are reasons why — despite a well sourced paragraph on interchangeability of terms not border limits — these are two distinct articles and the RfC for merging them was rightly rejected. Prime among them being that in definitions of South Asia, Afghanistan and at times south-eastern parts of Iran tend to be included, whereas no source has included Afghanistan as being part of the subcontinent since this term is of a distinct geographical nature like Tibetan plateau, Arabian peninsula, etc. with definable boundaries. Now, keep in mind you are pointing to another article, with no actual link or source provided in your reverted text itself. So a reader wanting to verify these claims would have to come to this talk page to get background on it. How about you actually add a source for your unreferenced assertion of Area up to Durrand in the article, and we shall proceed thence.
Meanwhile, let me make things more clear. Useful notions, and 'this minus that', are all subjective WP:OR WP:POV if they are not well-referenced. The Indian subcontinent actually is 'explicitly' referred to as being bordered by Indus in those two sources which your revert deleted, to be replaced - again - by no sources whatsoever. This is why I replied to Human's warning of 3RR with leaving the better sourced version, or rather the only sourced version, as it is whilst we resolve it here (before TopGun reverted out of nowhere only to accuse others of edit war). Also, despite any overlap Indian subcontinent has a different use than 'Indian plate', in much the same way Arabian peninsula has different meaning than 'Arabian plate'. One has to do with human geography, society, history, etc. and the other purely related to geology/plate tectonics. If you read the article, you would realize "having a certain geographical or political independence from the rest of the continent" implies an ethnographic or socio-cultural dimension, where clearly there is stark divergence historically between plains regions and the mountainous plateau to its west.
Most sources, including the main definition in this article, actually refer to the subcontinent being bordered by Koh-i-Sulaiman, Hindu Kush and Karakorum-Himalaya ranges in the north/west, with a few like those I provided that explicitly call Indus a border. This is why in my original edit and calculation, I stated that the above ranges were used as the western frontier, which is entirely consistent both with sources and the map used for this article. However, because semantics would bog down the discussion to whether bordered means encompassing, and hence a part of Afghanistan should also be part of subcontinent, I have provided two sources which actually show it refers more to where these ranges begin (going westwards beyond Indus valley) and floodplains end. Punjab and Sindh's western borders only approximate and are not exactly the same as path of Indus, therefore we can use it as a good measure of where plains end and aforementioned ranges begin, given the logic behind both provincial borders being drawn to begin with. R2d2 ka baap (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The number (with tilde to signify it is arguable) has been left as is, unreferenced. A note has been added to explain varied definitions of the term with sources. Hence, you are both asked to give your revert trigger fingers a well-earned rest. This matter is now closed. R2d2 ka baap (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Any changes to the article needs WP:CONSENSUS. You may not unilaterally close the matter right after reverting to a version you were trying to push in. You've been told already by the two above to drop it. You have been provided enough sources that have negated your claim of the subcontinent explicitly being upto Indus river. Now what a few sources claim has due weight to be discussed in the body (not the infobox) or not might be something that can be a possible inclusion only pending consensus and worded per consensus and not through editwar. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The change in question is not a revert, but addition of referenced note which does not alter or outright dispute the original version/number. It is relevant as an addendum to the number in infobox, which is an explicit quantitative claim that needs qualification. Since no references to back the claim have been provided, the number was left untouched, but a simple note has been added with sources to support this part of the article which states "the definition of the geographical extent of this region varies." There is no significant alteration of article in adding a note, and until this point the validity of sources or the alternative point of view they present has not been directly addressed by you or other users. Hence, it was seen as a reasonable compromise which accommodated both the unreferenced original number, and the referenced alternative definitions as a note. My apologies for saying the matter is closed, let it remain open till the issue is resolved. As an aside, does the addition of references to a non-FAR article also require WP:Consensus when not altering the original text at all? R2d2 ka baap (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You added content which was objected upon and continued to add it. Just the number was not the objection rather the claim you were adding. You need to get consensus here before adding it. Any change made to wikipedia, if objected (FA or not), needs to gain consensus. See WP:BRD which you've been ignoring. There's been no compromise at all as you were the only one calling it a compromise and "closing the matter". As you pointed out that the definition varies per the article itself. Adding such a claim with sources, in continuation to that text would make sense (depending on what the consensus is reached on the wording of that claim) but to the infobox as a note is WP:UNDUE weight to non standard definition. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Afghanistan[edit]

A bunch of IP editors have been removing the mention of Afghanistan as being part of the Indian subcontinent. When I checked the source, I found it to be vague on the issue. So, at the moment I have to say that this was unsourced content. If somebody has a better source, please feel free to add it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Indian Subcontinent is strictly a geographical term that arose due to the distinction of the said landmass from the surrounding region, due to - The Himalayas in the north and north-east, The Hindu Kush in the north-west, The Baloch highlands/desert in the west, the Arakans in the east, the Arabian Sea in the south-west, the Bay of Bengal in the south-east and the Indian Ocean in the south. Considering this, Afghanistan is slightly out of the area in question and therefore NOT included in the correct definition of the geographical term 'Indian subcontinent'. Afghanistan however, can and is, mentioned in the definition of the term South Asia.( a term which is more historical/cultural) Geopolitixx (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could state how the term arose, along with reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)