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.
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.
South Asia 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.
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.
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.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
South Asia is within the scope of WikiProject Myanmar (Burma), a project to improve all Myanmar related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
I may have to remove this because its geographically and culturally in Central Asia. The Indus river cuts Central Asia and South Asia off each other. I will remove once i found sources the strictly mention Afghanistan in Central Asia. Akmal94 (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Is that a threat? :-)
Afghanistan wants to be regarded as part of both South Asia and Central Asia. See the Euler diagram on the SAARC page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, note that a country can be in both Central Asia as well as South Asia. Region definitions are fungible and this article makes it clear that not all definitions include Afghanistan. It's not a question of "it is there so it can't be here".--regentspark (comment) 15:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Based on that logic then Bhutan should also be called East Asian,it fits in more with that region.188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the list that was just added. The definition of major should come from reliable sources, not from what a wikipedia editor decides is major. --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
No idea. But the larger point is whether the population of a city is an indicator and what level (10 largest, 10 million, 20 million) does a city stop being major. The list of cities will expand ad nauseam is we have a list at all. Either we don't include it or we, through consensus, establish criteria for inclusion before we do anything. I'm ok with either approach but we need consensus on which one (and the criteria if the latter). --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
We could just say largest cities like europe article and set the limit at 10 million otherwise the list will be too long. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I am assuming your silence means agreement so I am making the changes similar to Europe article. It is better than having no city mentioned at all. I am using worldatlas.com as my reference. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I removed four cities with less than 10 million in population (per the source you've provided). --regentspark (comment) 22:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
We should add a section on why the term "South Asia" is controversial
POV discussion of a blocked editor
The following discussion 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.
I think it's widely accepted within the South Asian community, even by many Pakistanis themselves, that South Asia is a geographic construct invented by the British Raj rather than by Indians themselves, and that the construct may not accurately portray the race, politics, and cultural definitions that South Asians think of.
Pakistan has always been hotly debated to as whether it's too Middle Eastern to be grouped in with the rest of South Asia, to the point where even far-left news outlets like the Huffington Post have been articles fighting against the definition. It's even quite common for Pakistanis to think of themselves as being too un-south-asian:
I also think we need to look at the racial differences more closely. I don't recognize Pakistanis as being visually South Asian and a lot of people on the internet also seem to think that there might be a third division north of North India within South Asia.
A lot of Westernized South Asians do not relate to Pakistanis racially or culturally.
The only time I have heard of Pakistan be mentioned as part of the Middle East or be called Middle Eastern are by people with very poor geography skills. Pakistan and the Middle East only have one thing in common and that is their religion other than that both sides are very different by race, ethnicity, and linguistically. In my opinion Iran and Turkey should be debated as to why they are part of the region when they are different to the majority Arab population of the Middle East. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
"South Asia" is a geographic construct hungover from colonial times and hence it would require reform - it would not be something that is taught but rather something that is lobbied for and currently accepted causally/colloquially.
It's a controversial issue within the "South Asian" community, and it's of note that several western organizations prefer to categorize Pakistanis in with the rest of the Middle East for convenience, suggesting that Pakistan's involvement in South Asia isn't the best fit available beyond political correctness gone mad.
We should correct the deficiency of this article by establishing a new section of how "South Asians" may not view Paksitan as a core nation of "South Asia". I might be able to write the section and provide solid references too, but I would prefer if someone else with a bit more time on their hands wrote it for me.
It should also be noted that Muslims are widely considered to be an ethnicity casually in places like Canada, Europe, India and Australia. And such thinking would technically segregate Pakistanis from the rest of "South Asia".
I think the topic of controversy is not whether Pakistanis are Middle Eastern, but rather if they should be segregated away from "South Asians", hence we don't need to discuss the peculiarities of whether Iranians or Turks are respectively Persian and European.
WP:NOTAFORUM. The article has nothing about "race, politics and cultural definitions". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, even if Pakistan was white, Christian and a member of EU, it would still be included in South Asia geography wise.18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Pakistan being a part of South Asia in not controversial in any way with people from the region, if it has become that its only because of whats been happening there since the Afghan war of 1980s, majority of Pakistanis reflect Indian muslim culture especially the eastern provinces. You say he country should be segregated from South Asians, and where is it to be included if evicted from South Asia? obviously Middle East, how convinient for you, a separate region cannot be created for it, or are your types aspiring to a new region made up of Afghanistan and Pakistan, probably Iran as well, throw in Turkey too? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Iran and Burma were once considered as part of South Asia, both are nothing like the region culturally nor belong to it geographically, so are not considered part of it anymore, if any place needs to be excluded from the area based on uniqueness its Bhutan, but it cant be because geographically its part of the region even though ethnically and culturally its east Asian, Pakistan on the other hand is totally South Asian ethnically and culturally i.e muslim South Asian culture and to top it off its geographically part of the area. All said the article is not about race, religion and culture but geography as pointed out by an editor above, Afghanistan is the only place that can be excluded from the region since geographically its not part of it, only SAARC economic grouping has got it dragged in here, basically if Pakistan had all blond, pale, blue eyed people practicing western culture and christian religion it would still be part of the region because of geography, it would not be segragated to set up a new region or be included in some other.126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Pakistani's dont look South Asian you say? Pakistani's reflect every type of person looks wise found in South Asia region, there is no distinct Pakistani look, Indian actress Aishwarya Rai is an example of how diverse the looks of the regions people are, she is not even of mixed race but pure Indian infact Bengali origin. Alot of westernised South Asians cant relate to Pakistani's??? they might not relate to the average Pakistani like they cant relate to their own average countrymen, but they most certainly do relate to Pakistani's who are westernised, again Pakistan's are totally South Asian in every way, from the common man to the westernised elite, from the dark skinned to the white and light eyed and everything in between, including race, culture, ethnicity, even faith wise which they share with three other countries as well as with the minorities in the other three. Dont try to make Pakistan appear as something superior to the rest of te countries of the region, it is no different, I'm a Pakistani and say it with full assurance, infact we may be inferior to the others in many ways.188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Indian's consider Muslims an ethinicity bunched up as one? since when? a Muslim from Karnataka state is a Karntakan not same as a Uttar Pradesh Muslim, many Muslims in India dont share anything in common with each other from state to state, besides their faith. Pakistani's hangout with South Asians when living abroad, be they non-Muslim South Asians specifically Indians, for Muslims from elsewhere interactions are limited mainly to mosque, educational institutes and work place, so you will rarely see a Pakistanis socialicing with a grpup of Arabs in the Middle East, while in places like the West where all Muslims are a minority, the interactions will still be limited to shopping at a Muslim run store or butcher, besides the places I mentioned above, they even have separate areas when living abroad, most living in those of their own region and ethnic background, so Pakistani's with Indians and other South Asian's rather than with Arabs or Africans or Malaysians.184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Homoeuropeeans: Welcome to wikipedia. I reverted your edit because I am puzzled how your summary is supported by the source(s) you cite. Let us start with your first sentence, "The concept of South Asia was invented during the era of colonialism by academics from the United Kingdom" which you claim is supported by the Joshi source. Could you identify or quote the part where that source is stating "South Asia was invented during the era of colonialism", and the "by academics" part in your summary? I see Joshi's stating South Asia did not exist in colonial times, that it "came into common circulation only after the end of British colonialism", that "South Asia continues to be used as a synonym for what was British India", etc. Please explain, discuss this per WP:BRD, and do not edit war. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The idea that the British invented the concept is actually discussed further up this wikipedia article, so that should be enough for you.
I'll keep my changes since that are in a subheading of their own and titled as being controversial - we allow non-conservative political viewpoints on wikipedia. If I wanted to be bold, I'd edit the main text.
That is non-responsive. You can't be citing something as alleged support for your contribution, and if it fails verification allege the wikipedia article supports what you added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Only a small deluded minority of Pakistani's mainly from the western provinces with an Iranian and Arab complex, think they are par of Middle East, the majority are pretty secure in their subcontinent / Indian origins, it has something to do with religion and its mostly that lot that goes through this when they have a Islamic awakening, Afghanistan is another country they want to hook up with due to macho Pukhtun male warrior complex they have. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
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.