Talk:Indian subcontinent - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RegentsPark (talk | contribs) at 16:07, 1 March 2010 (→Complying: restored Aditya Kabir version). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:07, 1 March 2010 by RegentsPark (talk | contribs) (→Complying: restored Aditya Kabir version)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Where did the term "subcontinent" originate? The term predates the acceptance of plate tectonics - it was common in Kipling in the 19th century, back when plate tectonics wasn't even a crank theory, let alone accepted science. - David Gerard 17:18, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent is a cultural term

I don't understand this debate on whether the term Indian subcontinent is a political term or a geographical term. It is neither. It is a cultural term refering to the cultural continuity that exists way back till mythological ages among the population living in this part of the world. The term South Asia is a political term refering to the countries residing in this region, while Indian Plate is the name for the geographical region.

Indian subcontinent is certainly not political. Indian subcontinent refers as much to the Republic of India as does the Bay of Bengal to Bangladesh or North and South America to the United States of America. Fgpilot (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

S3000 & Vandalism

this is gay This guy has been repeatedly undoing edits that I make because they are not "pro-Indian". I make my edits based on a neutral point of view, to conform with Misplaced Pages Standards, yet S3000 repeatedly undoes the spelling corrections and citation tags that I insert. He continuously accuses me of blanking pages, vandalizing, and threatening me. Overall he is preventing the development of this article.--76.106.41.173 (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by Pro-Indian? Is inserting information on the actual size of a country make me Pro-Indian? The first line of the Misplaced Pages:NPOV article writes that The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. You need reliable sources? You can tabulate them from this list (area) and this list (population). All information in those lists are from the UN. And why am I preventing the development of this article? I have, for long been inviting you to discuss this with me but you have been ignoring them. You have been also blanking your own userpage as done here and here amongst some. If you are really interested in the development of this article, why not you discuss this issue with me to the end before making more edits. You recent edit required citation, and to that I've provided. Now what more is needed? S3000 ☎ 11:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You repeatedly inserted information without inserting citations for them. After I brought this up, you choose to insert the citations. Before that you would repeatedly undo all my edits, thus hindering the development of this article. You also undid the spelling and grammar mistakes, I corrected. As to my user page; If it is "my" user page, than isn't it up to me to decide whatever to do with it? And yes, you are being "Pro-Indian", from your history of contributions to Misplaced Pages, you repeatedly edit changes in favor to India and sometimes without a NPOV. --76.106.41.173 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact I have been mentioning to you various times to check out the pages on the List of countries and outlying territories by total area and List of countries by population to ascertain the facts for yourself. I even mentioned more than once in your talk page but you didn't seem to care and kept on deleting them. I repeatedly undid your edits as you chose not to pursue this matter on this talk page or on my talk page earlier, although I've invited you to do so. Regarding your talk page, you are free to delete what you like, but why I wanted it there was because you were not acting accordingly. I repeatedly asked you to discuss this matter with me but you didn't, and you were continuing removing phrases. I initiated discussions on your talk page but you chose not to reply. Only now you are involving yourself in some constructive discussions, so further matters can be posted here. I'm also curious to know what are the 'spelling and grammer' corrections you made that I undid. Moving on, if you feel any of my edits aren't in accordance with NPOV, please bring it up in the talk pages of those articles (or on my talk page), and I'll hear you out. It isn't a problem with me. I'm always open to people's opinion as long as they are relevant. S3000 ☎ 13:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Can't we tone down the statement that:

It is also known as the "Subcontinent" and, though "Indian subcontinent" is the standard name used in international circles, "Indo-Pak subcontinent", which has cache primarily in the nation of Pakistan.

a little? Maybe something like:

It is also known just as the "Subcontinent", the "Indian subcontinent", and the "Indo-Pak subcontinent", with the last phrase preferred in Pakistan.

--iFaqeer 21:06, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

No.--D-Boy 04:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, how about renaming the article to Indo-Pak-Bangla-Lanka-Nepali Subcontinent? Oh forgot to add Bhutanese. LOL! --Incman|वार्ता 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an old topic from the dates, but just in case it every comes back, as a Bangladeshi, I do not like the use of Indian Subcontinent to describe the countries in South Asia, since there is the terminology "South Asia" itself. However, as far as I know, from the geological perspective, "Indian Subcontinent" is a technical term and it should be left as it is, unless one can cite technical papers (produced inside and outside South Asia) that use a different terminology.

urnonav 06:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on people, this is insane. Just because Pakistan was craved out of India just over half a century ago doesn't mean we have to change the name to Indo-Pak subcontinent. This name has been long standing because the subcontinent is located on the Indian Plate and because a large part of it is surrounded by the Indian Ocean. Then Iran may also want their name there because they form on the Indian plate too! and right from Indonesia and Australia, to South Africa would wanna be part of the Indian Ocean name! Is that logical? Although Sri Lanka and Nepal were not part of British India, they too come under the Indian Subcontinent. So why can't Pakistan be of the same league? To make it simple, India occupies, by far the largest part of the subcontinent, making its name mark the place. S3000 ☎ 14:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That last line is not accurate logic. It is the other way round. The Subcontinent wasn't named after India. The Republic of India was named after the Subcontinent. Historically, the region of India has been there for a few millenia now. The RoI, however, is recent creation dating back only to late 40s. That is also when citizens of the other countries in the geographic Indian region started complaining about the terminology "Indian Subcontinent" since Indian now gets used mainly as a demonym for RoI, not as a geographic description - not since 1947. Why can we not refer to it as just the "Subcontinent"? AFAIK, no other "subcontinents" exist. Also, what is the map of Indian vegetation doing in this article? Shouldn't it be in the article India? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.45.201 (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, we can't change a hallmark name just to suite the preferences of some groups. Pakistan, Bangladesh and other countries that form the subcontinent only came into existance (as a sovereign country) recently, while the name India has been used to mark the entire place for centuries (greater India). I meant by my last line (in my earlier post) that India is the most significant country in the subcontinent (in terms of size and population), and that's why the name hasn't changed. In my opinion, the name 'subcontinent' is too ambiguous. Indian subcontinent marks that it's on the Indian ocean, Indian plate, and the most significant landmark on it is India. S3000 ☎ 10:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"we can't change a hallmark name just to suite the preferences of some groups". Of course we can. That's exactly how all names are arrived at anyway - by satisfying someone's whims. Btw, India has officially existed for one less day than Pakistan. So, by your last argument, we should call it the "Pakistani Subcontinent". Right?

I agree that the "region of India" has existed as long as Asia has existed, but the naming has become too ambiguous after creation of the Republic of India: "Indian" can be a demonym of Republic of India or of the region. The centuries you are referring to, are centuries when Republic of India did not exist. Nor did any country called India. It was strictly a regional definition. Today "Indian" always refers to Republic of India except in few cases like the subcontinent and ocean. For example, "Indian population" or "Indian states" never refers to Nepal or Bangladesh or Bhutan. So, for anything that refers to the region and not the state, logic dictates we move towards "South Asia". It's a question of keeping up with time as things change. Do we still call Americas "New World" or Germany "Prussia"? No, because there is no point of living in the past. Btw, how is "subcontinent" too ambiguous? What else can it refer to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.45.201 (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the subcontinent is lying on the Indian plate and is bounded by the Indian ocean, do we also change the name of the two; by calling them 'South Asian Plate' and 'South Asian Ocean'? I agree India was founded only in 1947 (1 day after Pakistan), but you have to understand that the land that is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and to some extent Afghanistan and Nepal were collectively known as India for a much longer time. The region was known to the ancient Greeks as 'Indoi'. The name 'India' came from the Indus Valley Civilisation, which was in turn named after the Indus River. Since then the land has been known to be India (Greater India) to the world. This map from 1507 shows the area as India. The Honourable East India Company and Dutch East India Company which were founded in the early 1600s to enhance trade with the land both hold testimony to the name of the land and what the world has known it as. To date, everything that influenced the name area remains unchanged. The Indus river still flows, the ruins of the Indus civilisation still stand; both bearing no changes although largely situated in modern day Pakistan. Changing a hallmark name that has stood over 1000 years of time seems unacceptable to me. Although the region has always been in Southern Asia, the reason nobody called it 'South Asian Subcontinent' was to give a more specific picture of the place. Remember, the name Asia is believed to have been in existance since around 400BC. The name India (Republic of) was just taken from this age old name the land has been referred to eversince, just like how USA and South Africa were named after the region they sit on. So in other words the Republic of India named itself after the subcontinent. Going by your logic, even the name Africa should be changed since people may confuse South Africa with Southern Africa.

This cannot be compared to New World which was used by the Europeans for a very brief period as they were surprised stumbling upon a continent they never knew existed. Prussia on the other hand was a 16th century state / kingdom which today lies largely in Germany; just like the princely states India comprised of prior to independence.

The bottom line is we don't make decisions on changing hallmark names here in Misplaced Pages. That should be done by some international convention like the UN or something. In Misplaced Pages the articles are based on current circumstances. Currently the subcontinent is undisputedly known as the Indian Subcontinent and nothing else. You may lobby to change the name in the article once change has actually been made in that favour. We don't write decisions. We write on decisions. S3000 ☎ 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Style

"Tone down"? There's no attack or fire in this statement, which has nothing to do with NPOV but the current state of affairs. Indian subcontinent is a term overwhelmingly used to identify the area and shortening to 'subcontinent' by non-Pakistanis always implies "Indian subcontinent". The current suggestion also sounds clumsy. We should also give preference to the standard (and most-used) name (Indian subcontinent). How about this?

The Indian subcontinent is also referred to, more simply, as just the "Subcontinent". It is also known, primarily in Pakistan, as the "Indo-Pak subcontinent".

By prevaricating we're not going to do anything but shroud the truth of the subject. We should just tell it like it is.--LordSuryaofShropshire 21:30, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Indo-Pak subcontinent? Perhaps only u say that lolz. maye next indo-pak-bangla-nepal-bhutan-ceylon-maldives subcontinent! FO man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.79.177 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Usage Note

What do folks think of my latest changes?--iFaqeer 22:53, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

History is history

A historical reality cannot be wiped out by current political expediencies. History and politics should not be merged - here we are writing an encyclopaedia, and not discussing political dynamics and terminology. As such, I shall be restoring the page with suitable contents at the earliest as a redirection to South Asia is not appropriate. --Bhadani 16:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone did the job. I shall try to contribute more, as and when possible. --Bhadani 16:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. The reinstatement is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.197.240 (talk • contribs) of 20.05.06

You may register if you wish. --Bhadani 16:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

South Asia

Can someone explain why the "see also" is constantly reverted? Unless it is explained here, I will revert to a version with it. Hornplease 05:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Balochistan

As far as I know, most of the Balochistan region lies within the Iranian Plateau which geographically is not a part of the Indian subcontinent. Since Balochistan covers a major part of Pakistan, the article should mention that geographically not entire Pakistan lies within the Indian subcontinent. Remember, Indian subcontinent is a geographic term, not a political one. --Incman|वार्ता 20:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, User:Bharatveer first blanked the references (with the reference section too!) twice ,, and then even more interestingly, changed the text to claim that Balochistan is a part of the region!! I'd request User:Bharatveer to read the reference before making such reverts and changes. Specifically, when the text (and the reference) said that Pakistan (excluding Balochistan) is part of Indian subcontinent, I don't understand the logic behind changing the text to include Balochistan as a separate country under Indian subcontinent! --Ragib 08:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The cite regarding Balochistan refers to the Iranian province of Sistan-e-Baluchistan, not the Pakistani province of Balochistan. A better cite is needed. Afghan Historian 17:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Though the article is about Sistan-e-Baluchistan, it clearly says that Balochistan (and not just Iranian Balouchistan) lies in the Middle East. The article makes the point very clear. --Incman|वार्ता 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, scroll down and read the sections on History and Environmental issues. The article talks about Balouchistan as a whole. --Incman|वार्ता 18:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I never denied that Balochistan does not lie on the Iranian plateau. I was just asking for a more specific article, so other readers would not be confused. Their are better sources out there for this fact. Afghan Historian 15:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The subcontinent is not the same thing as the Indian plate; it is the geographical union of all the countries that (substantially) lie on the India Plate, and it therefore includes all of Pakistan. Western Baluchistan does not lie on the Indian plate, but it does lie on the subcontinent, similarly, the Mustang region of Nepal lies on the Tibetan plateau, and therefore not on the India plate, but it does lie on the subcontinent. The definition of "subcontinent," according to the Oxford English Dictionary (1989 edition), "A land mass of great extent, but smaller than those generally called continents; a large section of a continent having a certain geographical or political independence; spec. applied formerly to South Africa, and more recently to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka." Note geographical or political. As citations of usage, the OED gives: "1971 R. RUSSELL in Aziz Ahmad's Shore & Wave 'The novel in Urdu, as in all the modern languages of the South Asian sub-continent, is of very recent growth.' 1972 Times of India 'Nov. 11/4 Mr. Azad outlined his Government's views on the political problems of the sub-continent' 1978 L. HEREN Growing up on The Times v. 175 'Many Indians refused to accept the partition of the sub-continent.'" In other words, the term "South Asian subcontinent" or "Indian subcontinent" is primarily a geographical, but not entirely a geographical term, and it is not identical to the Indian (techtonic) plate. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it any different from South Asia? How? Aditya 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wildlife of the Indian Subcontinent

Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nepal

I was looking at some plate studies of Nepal and from what I can see, a good portion of it does not lie on the Indian subcontinent proper, but on the edge of the Tibetan plateau, within the Himalayan range. Afghan Historian 15:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion

It is a geographical reality. --Bhadani (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we please go ahead and remove Indian subcontinent from this awful merge proposal? Both Indian subcontinent, the geographical/geological article, and Indianized kingdom, the historical article, ought to be removed from considered merger with the other articles about contemporary culture. Apparently the main discussion of the merger is going on at Talk:Indies. --arkuat (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this any different from the Indian Plate? If so, how? Aditya 03:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Indian Plate includes oceanic crust out to the plate boundaries under the ocean; the subcontinent does not include any oceanic crust, but only top-floating continental crust. These are geological terms. --arkuat (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So far I have seen only political use of the term Indian Subcontinent. Is there any source that claims that the term applies to the top-floating continental crust of the Indian Plate, or something like that? Aditya 10:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent is a geographical term that has been around for a long time. Only recently it is not considered politically correct by people of certain countries in the region. South Asia is a more recent term and mostly used by Americans in common use. Even cricket commentators call it "The Subcontinent". I don't mind the merge proposal as long as the South Asia article mentions " also known as Indian Subcontinent" at the beginning rather than "also know as Southern Asia". Saying Southern Asia is an over kill a rarely used term. A search on Indian Subcontinent should also direct to "South Asia" article in that case. Merging the two articles and not acknowledging the name Indian Subcontinent would be suppressing facts. Indoresearch (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

List of countries

When a person with some info regarding this area will read this article, he or she will know which countries are in the sub-continent. However, if a person with not so good general knowledge will see this article, I am not quite sure he will immediately know the countries that are the part of this region. I mean read this;

"The subcontinent includes parts of various countries in South Asia, including those on the continental crust (India, Pakistan east of the river Indus, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan), an island country on the continental shelf (Sri Lanka), and an island country rising above the oceanic crust (the Maldives)."

'Including those' means that these are the countries in this region but there may be others too. Just an observation, I may be wrong. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It seems pointless to have separate articles for Indian Subcontinent, South Asia, and Indian plate. All political facts relating to the region should rightly go in South Asia since that is the acceptable term these days (cf. SAARC). Information relating to the continental plate should go in the Indian plate article. That really does not leave much for Indian Subcontinent to do. The reality is that the term 'Indian Subcontinent' is a political term that, while it is acceptable as a synonym for 'South Asia', is slowly being replaced by the latter. Pretending that it is a geographical entity defined by the Indian plate (I plead guilty of that as well) does not really get us anywhere. Therefore, I propose that we:

Have only two articles, one for the tectonic plate and one for the political entity
Title the political entity 'South Asia' with Indian subcontinent redirecting to South Asia
Ensure that the Indian subcontinent term is recognized as being equivalent to South Asia in the lead and explain that the term is historical rather than current.

Comments? --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 17:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

To reduce the clutter of way too many articles on similar topics, I must support this proposal. Aditya 12:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Indoresearch says it well.--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

South Asia is far bigger than the subcontinent. For example, Tibet, Afghanistan, much of Pakistan, much of Myanmar... are all off the Indian Subcontinent, yet sometimes to always considered South Asia. I agree with Regents Park that there should be one page for the plate and one page for the South Asia, I propose

Transfer of meaningful content from this page to South Asia

Clearing of this page

Conversion of this page into a redirect

and a note on South Asia noting that Indian Subcontinent redirects there and provide a link to Indian plate.

~~Southern Asia is used by the UN, that is why it is mentioned Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)~~

Change of mind, I oppose Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The great number of blue links coming into this page are looking to know what "Indian subcontinent" means and something about it. As is stated on both pages, "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are not the same thing. This page says

"Although the term Indian subcontinent is often used geographically, it is not entirely a geographical term. The approximately equivalent but more geopolitical term, South Asia or Southern Asia, however, sometimes includes territories found external (but proximal) to the Indian Plate—including Tibet and Myanmar (formerly Burma)."

The South Asia page says

"Some definitions may also include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Tibet, and even Iran."

If the two pages were to be merged, it would surely cause confusion for those who are new to one of the expressions or the other. You could of course explain the difference, but for any particular statement on the new page you would need to say whether you were referring to "Indian subcontinent" or "South Asia", and people don't normally read every single word of a page, so they might miss your definition of "Indian subcontinent". I think it's more sensible to keep both pages. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But, what if we consider that both the definitions may be wrong, or at least not right? Neither seem to have strong enough academic support to stand up to the claims that keeps expanding the boundaries. Aditya 11:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that point, Aditya, and I agree with establishing with academic sources how both terms are best used, but I would suggest that someone needs to do that before anyone takes a view that the pages ought to be merged. My own personal feel for it is that if I use "South Asia" I mean an area bigger than the subcontinent, and I see there's a map on the South Asia page which shows more or less what I would mean. Here it is. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding. The map already looks a bit over-the-top, and this demarcation of the map needs to be validated a bit, I guess (besides, South Asia may not be a vegetation-wise identifiable region as such). It seems the UN agrees that only Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka constitutes the South Asia (see here), which apparently corresponds closely with the plate tectonic thingy that's being discussed. Aditya 13:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

^Aditya, the UN definition is not all that matters; also, the UN subregion of Southern Asia includes Afghanistan and Iran in entirety, both of which are off the plate and off the subcontinent . Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the demarcation of that map is based on the varying definitions of South Asia. There is a huge amount of academic (and government) support for inclusion of Afghanistan as part of South Asia. There is a slightly smaller amount of support for Tibet due to this horrible event, yet nonetheless a large number of academics claim Tibet to be part of South Asia or at the least highly affiliated with it. Legitimate academics definitions and the UN definition of South Asia spread South Asia off the geological/geographical subcontinent Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Very true, though the other UN definition keeps out Myanmar. That makes the idea of the Indian Subcontinent only a sub-set of the varying definitions of South Asia. On top of that, Indian Subcontinent is hardly a non-political identity. Vegetation or tectonic plate has hardly anything to do with that definition. Aditya 14:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The UN puts IRAN, which is on the Eurasian plate, as part of Southern Asia. The UN definition is a geopolitical definition and most of the academic or government definitions referenced are all cultural definitions, the IS is a geographical/geological definition. Myanmar is partially/mostly on the Indian plate, if we use the IS then Myanmar is more South Asian than Pakistan. These two concepts don't go together Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm surprised that this proposal keeps popping up again. The Indian plate includes oceanic crust, which the Indian subcontinent does not. South Asia is a cultural concept much more loosely defined. There is no reason whatsoever to merge these articles; instead, redudant information that appears in two or more of these articles ought to be removed from those articles to which the information is less appropriate and kept only in the most appropriate of the three articles. --arkuat (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Would some one define what is appropriate for the three articles? So far, nothing but overlapping confusions seem to be the norm of the day. Aditya 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree!

I agree with merging Indian subcontenent with southern asia!!!!Danspore (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Since, this article is supposed to have an independent and separate reason for existence outside the South Asia and Indian plate articles, let it be so. Keep the material that belongs to any one of those articles to them, and keep what is pertinent to this separate and independent article to this one. Aditya 01:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Merging

With the verifiable and reliable evidence emerging on the South Asia article, this article seems absolutely meaningless. If there is no contrary evidence available, I am perfectly willing to take the step myself. Aditya 17:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with your doing that. (Nice work on South Asia, BTW.) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

*Blush* Thanks. Aditya 17:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for verifiable and reliable evidence that says anything about the Indian Subcontinent not being synonymous with South Asia. This shouldn't wait indefinitely, and since problems are more certain to be fixed, and will probably be fixed faster, if you are bold enough to do it yourself and consensus is not immutable. I'd rather fix this sham and be ready for a BRD cycle. Just remember, voting without reasoning doesn't count as the policies go. Aditya 03:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent and South Asia are reasonably synonymous so go ahead. (Do note however that Indian subcontinent is a term often used without reference to South Asia. That the article is at South Asia rather than at the Indian Subcontinent is not a sham but an expedient conclusion based on our interpretation of the common name of the geographical entity. While it is more likely than not that this conclusion is correct, there is enough doubt - in my mind anyway - that I wouldn't use labels like sham to describe the co-existence of the articles.)--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 03:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the use of that incorrect word. It was an expression of the feeling I got from reading through the arguments made so far (BTW, when the term is not used with a reference, or in conjunction to, to South Asia, it still essentially means/denotes/connotes/whatever South Asia very much, which is perfectly evident from the inclusion of the geographical boundaries defined by such usage). Thanks for your support. Aditya 04:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I think they are synonymous and that Indian Subcontinent is being slowly replaced by South Asia anyway. Plus, we've got to do something about these multiple articles related to India that are practically the same. The sooner merged, the better, IMO. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

they are clearly not synonymous. South Asia is the geopolitical term. You cannot use "South Asia" in historical (pre-1947) contexts. Clearly, the Maldives, as an archipelago, are not part of the Indian subcontinent, but they are, of course, as a state, part of South Asia. If this article can be merged anywhere, the target would more likely be Indian Plate. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree with dab. The term "Indian subcontinent" is not only notable and different from South Asia (since the use of either word can be a political statement), but is also geographical, not geological in nature (which establishes an obvious difference with Indian plate).Pectore 21:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

'Indian subcontinent' is a sufficiently different notion from 'South(ern) Asia' (though often synonymous) that there should be articles regarding each topic; it should also not be merged with 'Indian Plate', since that entity extends even further southeast to form the larger Indo-Australian Plate. Indeed, all are notable and worthy of discrete treatment. A clear consensus for the merge was not demonstrated in Apr. but it occurred anyway, and that article suffered (e.g., succumbing to POV-pushing) as a result. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources, please

Is there any valid source that support the following statements:

Geographically, the Indian subcontinent is a peninsula region south of the Himalayas and Kuen Lun mountain ranges and east of the Indus River and the Iranian Plateau, extending southward into the Indian Ocean between the Arabian Sea (to the southwest) and the Bay of Bengal (to the southeast).
~~It covers about 4,480,000 km² (1,729,738 mi²) or 10 percent of the Asian continent; however, it accounts for about 40 percent of Asia's population.~~

If possible, please, add sources to support the the claims about the boundary and the population. And, please, don't remove requests to add citation without adding citations. Aditya 15:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, one has been cited, with changes in the information. Good work going. Aditya 15:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A number of fulsome sources have been provided to support information that you have tagged, and text amended appropriately. Thus, your tags were rightfully removed. Other references may follow, when able. Given your 'ghastly tag pollution' and prior position on this article, which you merged without a clear consensus, it appears that you are doing so more to prove a point. Refrain from added dickery. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No source covers the boundary stated. Not yet. Is it possible to cite some sources for it? Aditya 01:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia makes use of another interesting term - "the subcontinent of Asia" - that probably refers to South Asia much like the the Indian Subcontinent. Any idea about that term? Aditya 03:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Is it possible to stop illustrating further point? The sources have already been provided in article.--119.30.36.42 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that we stick to the policies, and stop getting personal, as that's violating a longstanding core policy. Let's rather uphold the principle of verifiability, as the burden of evidence is always on the editor who adds or restores material. Unverified statements may very well be removed, and that remains well within the policies. I have not done that, and I have not even restored the tag asking for citation. Politely asking for credible sources on the talk page really doesn't warrant personal attacks, especially without an attempt to add sources. Exactly which point and which disruptive edit are you referring to when you quote WP:POINT? Aditya 16:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Three editors as of late have pointed out inequities in your editing behaviour. Please do not attempt to iterate policies which we already know but which you seem to skirt about with regards to this topic. If you had such a vested interest in the article, you could easily research the references that we have and placed them. But, no, your bias against the mere presence of this article -- as demonstrated by your nonconsensual merge of it into 'South Asia' a little while back -- coupled with your pointed requests and 'ghastly' tag pollution, speak volumes. As well, I have reverted your inattentive copy-and-paste of content from that article: some of the content unquestionably belongs here, but you cared not to format the lead or place the content within context. If you opt to not have this 'get personal', do not insult our intelligence and perhaps move along to another article that is better suited for your interest and attention. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you, please, provide citations for the boundary section? And, how do you explain removal of sourced and cited material? I can definitely see two editors (you and an anon) bad-mouthing about me, but so far no reasonable explanation about their behavior is forthcoming. Please, remember that consensus on Misplaced Pages is not about voting. Aditya 09:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't you provide them? Stop being pedantic: there's no doubt the information is credible, but your simple copy-and-paste will not do. If you can't edit properly, don't. Apropos, I have added a reference regarding the delineation of the region. Three editors (myself, Brhaspati, the anon) have commented on your editing behaviour; I have expanded above. And, yes, Misplaced Pages is about consensus ... and your edits have not been rooted in any. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But, the source doesn't include all those mentions about Kuen Lun mountain ranges, Indus River, or Iranian Plateau. Is that synthesized information? Please, also remember that if I add an information or defend it, the responsibility is mine to prove it credible, but the same doesn't apply if I challenge the validity of the information. That is the policy by consensus for Misplaced Pages.

How is Brhaspati connected to these repeated violations of Misplaced Pages behavioral guidelines?

Regarding your removal, please, mark the places you think a copyedit is required. It is way better than removing content in ways that stand against Misplaced Pages. I am posting the material you removed here (though copyedit for fine finish is never a reason for content removal on the Misplaced Pages). I hope you can identify where the copy requires a copyedit.

I would reason that the delineation provided earlier is not a synthesis, it simply requires additional citation as yet or refactoring. I didn't add aforementioned content. Nonetheless, you are being thoroughly pedantic. Do you honestly think that editors have the time or inclination to gut your misplaced pastiche of content from 'South Asia', without you making any edits yourself or contributing constructively? You must integrate content into an article. I have no inclination to babysit you on how to edit a page properly, nor am I going to iterate prior notions. As well, your accusations of personal attacks ring rather hollow: three editors have noted inequities in your editing regarding this, and Misplaced Pages is not your mother. In addition, I have not removed content of note, since it exists at 'South Asia.' Moreover, given particularly your nonconsensual merge months ago and a glance at your earlier comments above, I am of the opinion that you seem intent on disputing or devaluing the notion that this article is about and seek to throw reversers to effectively develop it. If you want editors to engage you, please edit in a more collaborative and less tendentious fashion. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The term "Indian subcontinent" refers to a large, self-contained landmass which is geographically separated from the rest of the Asian continent. Due to similar scope, the terms "South Asia" and "Indian subcontinent" are used by some academics interchangeably. Due to political sensitivities, some prefer to use the terms "South Asian Subcontinent", the "Indo-Pak Subcontinent", or simply "South Asia" or "the Subcontinent" over the term "Indian subcontinent". According to some academics, the term "South Asia" is in more common use in Europe and North America, rather than the terms "Subcontinent" or the "Indian Subcontinent". 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. However, this opinion is not shared by all.

By dictionary entries, the term subcontinent signifies "having a certain geographical or political independence" from the rest of the continent, or "a vast and more or less self-contained subdivision of a continent." It may be noted that geophysically the Tsang Po river in Tibet is situated at the outside of the border of the Subcontinental structure, while the Pamir Mountains in Tajikistan is situated inside that border.

According to one clubbing of countries, it includes most parts of the South Asia, including those on the continental crust (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, and Pakistan), an island country on the continental shelf (Sri Lanka), and an island country rising above the oceanic crust (the Maldives). Another clubbing includes only Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, the mainstay of the British Raj, as the Subcontinent. This version also includes the disputed territory of Aksai Chin, which was part of British Indian princely state Jammu and Kashmir, but is now administered as a part of Chinese autonomous region of Xinjiang. A booklet published by the United States Department of State in 1959 includes Afghanistan, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), India, Nepal, and Pakistan as part of the "Subcontinent of South Asia". When the term Indian Subcontinent is used to mean the South Asia, the islands countries of Sri Lanka and the Maldives are sometimes not included, while Tibet and Nepal are included and excluded intermittently, depending on the context.

^ The history of India - By John McLeod
Milton Walter Meyer, South Asia: A Short History of the Subcontinent, pages 1, Adams Littlefield, 1976, ISBN 082260034X
Jim Norwine & Alfonso González, The Third World: states of mind and being,‎ pages 209, Taylor & Francis, 1988, ISBN 0049101218
Lucian W. Pye & Mary W. Pye, Asian Power and Politics, pages 133, Harvard University Press, 1985, ISBN 0674049799
Mark Juergensmeyer, The Oxford handbook of global religions, pages 465, Oxford University Press US, 2006, ISBN 0195137981
Sugata Bose & Ayesha Jalal, Modern South Asia, pages 3, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 0415307872
Judith Schott & Alix Henley, Culture, Religion, and Childbearing in a Multiracial Society, pages 274, Elsevier Health Sciences, 1996, ISBN 0750620501
Raj S. Bhopal, Ethnicity, race, and health in multicultural societies, pages 33, Oxford University Press, 2007, ISBN 0198568177
Imagining India - By Ronald B. Inden
Worldwide destinations - By Brian G. Boniface, Christopher P. Cooper
Oxford English Dictionary 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 1989
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, Merriam-Webster, 2002, retrieved 11 March 2007
Valentin Semenovich Burtman & Peter Hale Molnar, Geological and Geophysical Evidence for Deep Subduction of Continental Crust Beneath the Pamir, pages 10, Geological Society of America, 1993, ISBN 0813722810
Stephen Adolphe Wurm, Peter Mühlhäusler & Darrell T. Tryon, Atlas of languages of intercultural communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, pages 787, International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies, Published by Walter de Gruyter, 1996, ISBN 3110134179
After partition: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, BBC, 2007-08-08
Superintendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office, The Subcontinent of South Asia: Afghanistan, Ceylon, India, Nepal and Pakistan, United States Department of State, Public Services Division, 1959
John McLeod, The history of India, pages 1, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, ISBN 0313314594
James C. Harle, The art and architecture of the Indian subcontinent, pages 214, Yale University Press, 1994, ISBN 0300062176
Joseph Hackin & Paul Louis Couchoud, The Mythologies of the East: Indian Subcontinent, Middle East, Nepal and Tibet, Indo-China and Java, pages 1, Aryan Books International, 1996, ISBN 817305018X

So you have decided that you need not to care for the Misplaced Pages, since you are right. Is that so? Trying to be a little more concrete in constructive explanation would have helped more than repeating the same rude insults over and over again. Thanks for superb work of synthesizing the same information to suit your purpose (proving that South Asia and Indian Subcontinent are not synonymous). I perfectly understand now that by copyedit you were referring to this aberration. Aditya 01:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. The article history clearly demonstrates your tendentious efforts to deprecate the very topic of this article (e.g., merge). Nothing suits my purpose: I am simply trying to salvage what was in the article with whatever else there was, including your crude copy-and-paste. No matter. Given your obstinacy, it is very clear that further discourse with you is counterproductive; I will weigh in again on this talk page when someone ELSE has something useful to contribute. Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what exactly is this problem with "merging without a clear consensus"? By WP:BOLD guidelines and WP:BRD techinques it was never as bad as you're trying to make it look like, since it's okay to use your brain. Discredit me, but do not discredit Misplaced Pages, please. Please, go through this talk page and Talk:Indies carefully along with article history before you wantonly start violating behavioral guidelines. After working on the redundant and the debatable this "landmass" looks no different from South Asia (nothing concrete about the tectonic plate or such stuff). And, as you see, the merger has kept a whole section "Indian Subcontinent", only with a more substantiated explanation of the term, and sans the unsubstantiated fluff on geophysics. But, *sigh*, you continue to view insults to be a form of discussion. Aditya 02:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Already dealt with above. Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by Aditya Kabir

A clearer, reputable reference regarding the delineation of the region has been added. Matter solved.
As well, I am greatly disturbed by your tendentious editing on this article (stemming back before your abortive merge and escalating recently, minimal or vacuous edit summaries (combined with underhanded edits leading to POV pushing, e.g., replacement of "some academics" with just "(all) academics"), your contradictory removal of references because you didn't like them despite your prior concurrence, and general disruption (e.g., aforementioned; subtitling of a usage section incorrectly as "Definitions" when it doesn't possess any and despite Oxford dicdef provided). All of which are in apparent furtherance of your intent to make a point and in general contravention of editing policies. This very brief article has more than 20 references ... a time-consuming, exasperating exercise largely to satisfy your long-standing disbelief and dickery. And, while the references improve the article content, the article itself has suffered as a result of your stance, 'ghastly' tag pollution, and obstructionism leading to edit warring and collateral damage. You may harp about 'no personal attacks', which is hogwash, but a spade is a spade. So, let me be crystal clear: if your editing behaviour does not improve and not fall more inline with policies and procedures, I will seek the strongest possible sanctions against you. And, I really have nothing more to say regarding this and will await comments from others. Bosonic dressing (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, do follow up on the threat. Aditya 11:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A small problem

The hatnote says Indian Subcontinent is a "geophysical" regional, but the text has only "geographical", "geological" and "geopolitical" description. Is it possible to add some "geophysical" material into the text? Or is the hatnote that requires fixing? Aditya 01:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Another problem

The area covers about 4.4 million km² (1.7 million mi²), which is 10% of the Asian continent or 2.4% of the world's land surface area.
Overall, it accounts for about 34% of Asia's population (or over 16.5% of the world's population) and is home to a vast array of peoples.

How can this be decided if the number of countries included are not fixed? I am sure that no country has 0 area or 0 population. These information either have to come with the parameters included, or put as a range of varying numbers, or if either becomes difficult then put our altogether. Aditya 08:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the prior structure, wherein the 'cite' tags recently added were for notions that were already referenced but recently blanked by a redlinked editor. As for the area/population figures, in place for awhile, they are what they are: cited. Those numbers may include various countries in whole or in part: it's not for us to 'decide'. Lastly, as before, there is little justification for lumping the usage section in with the lead, as if it is the predominant issue regarding the region (compare with 'Central America'), though that section can perhaps be the second one. Bosonic dressing (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no other region that has a problem with the nomenclature as far as I know. I may be wrong, but then perhaps it's possible to show a region that has a similar problem with nomenclature. Besides, the sub-header "usage" is quite meaningless here. Use of what is being discussed? I think you should try using the English Channel as you structural guide, rather than Central America. As for deciding, we always can decide what's strange and what doesn't add up. Using our brains, is not really prohibited by Misplaced Pages. May be you can try:

(When X, Y and Z are included) the area covers about 4.4 million km² (1.7 million mi²), which is 10% of the Asian continent or 2.4% of the world's land surface area.
(When X, Y and Z are included) it accounts for about 34% of Asia's population (or over 16.5% of the world's population) and is home to a vast array of peoples.

Cheers. Aditya 03:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure if other regions have the same issues, though others exist: Western/Eastern Europe (physiographic/geopolitical), East(ern) Africa/Horn of Africa, North America (sometimes including the United States and Canada). If we use 'English Channel' as a guide, note that 'Geography' is the first section, while 'Etymology' is the second, which is still my preference here -- I have simplified the section header further.

As for X/Y/Z, I don't think we should be making assumptions about what is included -- after all, MPS is only an essay, not a policy. If sources are available, I don't see a problem expanding but I believe those sorts of details should be as footnotes, particularly because a number of sources are in use, that is detailed information, and all may not agree, which is a problem even for other territories (e.g., Europe). Bosonic dressing (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this Aditya. The two 'another problem's listed above seem well referenced. While the definition of what is or is not included in the Indian subcontinent may be argued over, as long as both that argument, as well as statements on specifics, are well referenced, there should be nothing inconsistent with including both. Ambiguity is, after all, the one essential nature of all knowledge. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I generally concur with this commentary. Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Lemme explain again. Let's assume that you are not an editor who has spent a lot of time over the article and can quote a number of policies, rather let's assume you're a reader who is trying to get some information on Indian Subcontinent. What happens in that case? First you read "the region now comprises the countries of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh; it often also includes Nepal, Bhutan, and offshore Sri Lanka". Then you read "The area covers about 4.4 million km² (1.7 million mi²), which is 10% of the Asian continent or 2.4% of the world's land surface area" and "Overall, it accounts for about 34% of Asia's population (or over 16.5% of the world's population) and is home to a vast array of peoples". Then what do you understand? Does that 4.4 million km² or 16.5% of the world's population include Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka? Or are they left out when calculating those numbers? I believe Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a bureaucracy. Did I manage to explain this time? Or did I fail again? Aditya 11:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not seeing the point of iterating this information, given that the various references already point to what these figures are and/or delineate the region, with some of the citations quoting relevant points. The lead for Europe, for example, makes no similar attempt to deconstruct what the area is composed of, though there may be utility in that. Perhaps you can provide sources for this information? Otherwise, it's not really an issue, or 'another' problem. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this really that difficult to understand? Okay, I'll see what I can do. Aditya 15:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Your recent edits are not precisely as indicated -- that is actually good, since the recent edits are not too atomic regarding these details; some refactoring may yet be warranted. As such, it is far more beneficial for you to make the edits you suggest instead of possibly having other editors jump through hoops to do so for you: after all, I bear in mind prior activity on this page, which gives me pause about proposals for change. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Jumping through the hoops as in reverts and threats? Aditya 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not just. End communication. Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Aditya 14:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Structure of the article

I have made changes to the structure of the article which one editor is constantly reverting without discussion. I guess I need to start the discussion. Well, here are the reasons:

About half the article is about defining what falls within the region referred to as "Indian Subcontinent" it is only prudent to keep that information together. Spreading out that critical information over three different section is a deterrent to understanding area or the information presented.
The section that existed as "Human geography" was all about what country comes within the scope of "Indian Subcontinent" apart from one single sentence on the population (which already is pretty undefined, but that's a separate issue). Therefore, information is better organized if that single sentence is merged into the section that existed as "Physical geography". All that was required was to call it simply - "Geography".

That's all the change that has been made. If it looks or feels wrong, please, state why it is so while reverting it once again. Aditya 15:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And I have corrected these substantial, nonconsensual changes again. Your original groupings of information only serve to (IMO) further a personal bias regarding definitions of the region and obstructionism in editing this article. As previously structred, physical geography deals with physical elements of the region, while human geography involves anything when descriptions of countries and people (e.g., populations) come into play. Lumping all this information together in one geography section, while creating two sections on definition and terminology which overwhelm the article, places undue emphasis on those concepts and detract from understanding specifics about the region. So, no, per above that's not 'all the change that has been made.' All the more flummoxing given the proportion of humanity that lives in the region. So ... commentary from other editors is welcomed. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to notice that the article is not about the proportion of humanity that lives in the region, rather it is about an alternative concept for South Asia. Therefore, nomenclature, definition, and scope naturally gets more emphasis. Did you try emphasizing on anything that can't be covered in the article of South Asia, and is exclusive to Indian Subcontinent? Substantiating a stand is always more desirable unwarranted personal attacks. Obviously you can see that your opinion on my intentions should not be the guiding principle for an Misplaced Pages article, especially when you have not addressed a single argument forwarded above. Aditya 03:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I have merged the "Definition" and "Terminology" sections to reduce the fear of undue weight. I also have split the geography section to have a section on "geography" and another on "geology". Now both can be developed further. Aditya 03:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And I have corrected your edits, yet again. Your prior commentary is proof positive of your stance regarding the issue and, as above, your recent edits further that. Of course it is about the geography of the region and, as it were, the proportion of humanity in the region, not your conflation of terms. It is not an alternative concept for South Asia as such, but a concept unto itself. The references provided, largely as a result of your tortuous activity on this page, are namely about the subcontinent. Your edits to the article place, unjustifiably, undue weight on nomenclature to the exclusion of much else, and your editing throughout has had a similar effect on content with the goal of confusing issues and deprecating the term (e.g., prior merge w/o consensus). Can you honestly say your edits have made this a more encyclopedic article? I have addressed what little salient argumentation you have provided. Come back when you can better objectify and justify your edits. As for commenting on your behaviour, as others above have here, a spade is a spade: Misplaced Pages is not your mother. Bosonic dressing (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What undue weight are you talking about? Your failure to provide substantial amount of information that's exclusively about Indian Subcontinent and not about South Asia doesn't imply that we have to revert back to a nonsensical structure to prove whatever point you're trying to make. I have corrected your erroneous edit once again.

And, since Misplaced Pages is not my mother, would you prefer to state the reason to spread the variance in the geographical scope of the region over multiple sections? Is it just an attempt to counter my supposed intention? Or, is it an attempt to make a more encyclopedic article? If it's my intentions, you have repeatedly based ALL your arguments on that (no matter how inappropriate that is). It it's encyclopedic, then, please, state how so (so far you haven't tried that appropriate line of argument at all).

BTW, since you have a problem with believing that South Asia and Indian Subcontinent are alternatively used terms, I am providing names of a few books that uses these two terms alternatively (of course there are many books that uses these two terms exclusively, but that can't possibly be an argument to show that it can't be or it isn't used alternatively):

Alison Arnold, South Asia: the Indian subcontinent
David Christian, Maps of time: an introduction to big history‎
Jonathan B. Tucker, Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox
Hooman Peimani, Nuclear proliferation in the Indian subcontinent
Anne Digby & John Stewart, Gender, health and welfare

Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal wrote - "Well what is this Indian Subcontinent - or South Asia, as it has come to be known in more recent and neutral parlance - whose history will be interpreted in this book?" - while writing an introduction to Modern South Asia: history, culture, political economy (Routledge, 1998). I hope this will satisfy you somewhat, unless you have some argument that relies more on fact and less on psychoanalysis. Aditya 05:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already elaborated about the undue weight issue: pay attention. Otherwise, there is little fact above, only additional gibbering in furtherance of your POV. In sum, I do not have a problem with believing that the two terms may be used alternatively, but take issue with your dickery when editing this article to conflate and hyperinflate that association. Various sources have been provided, somewhat as a result of your tendentious editing, which deal directly with the subcontinent. I have corrected your substantial -- and nonconsensual, not to mention nonsensical -- structural and contextual edits, which devoted (e.g.) more than half the article to terminology and definition unnecessarily. I see no reason to yield until otherwise compelled and, given your disruption, now may have no choice but to escalate this administratively. Nonetheless, as such, additional feedback from others is welcomed. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Half the information here is about definition and terminology, no matter how you try to disguise it. And the whole article is about an alternative definition to South Asia, no matter how foul your behavior is. I'm restoring the sensible structure once again.

Please, prove how Indian Subcontinent is so significantly different from South Asia. And, I'm sure you're capable of understanding that calling me names doesn't count as a proof.

And, please, follow up on your threat. Aditya 06:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be back to your old tricks yet again. So, your POV -- not to mention nonconsensual -- edits have been reverted, save relevant references. Doing so further without garnering consensus will yield similar results. It is also clear that further discussion with you is rather useless, and this article has suffered as a result of your POV pushing and tendentious, disruptive editing regarding this topic. And, yes, your behaviour should be scrutinised. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, stop disruptive POV pushing. Aditya 10:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please ... Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please. Your stupidity hurts the Misplaced Pages. Aditya 07:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Flattery will get you nowhere -- you need a civility lesson. Your subjective, nonconsensual, and nonsensical edits will be corrected until you shape up. Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow! You really define the word civility. Aditya 04:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahaahhahahahaa.... reminded of WP:CI! Misplaced Pages:Category intersection!! What I'm missing here!!! Aditya 04:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear little bossonic dressing, you think I breached WP:3RR ()? Sorry to tell you that: (1) I didn't make any revert back to sensible structure which you have been reverting constantly without any rational reason (apart from personal slanders and an acute case of incivility); (2) I did save the article from you whimsical removal of appropriately sourced and reputable material, which would have been a perfectly valid action even if it were a breach of 3RR. Devious ploys to outsmart another editor on top of being rude, crude and stubborn doesn't help the Misplaced Pages. You've been here long enough to know that. But, hey, you did breach 3RR perfectly. Very cute. Aditya 05:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Protecting article

To be honest, both of you are in a low grade edit war that is just keeping within the technical definition of 3RR. I've tried to make sense of what you are fighting about but I admit that I can't figure it out. There doesn't seem to be a compelling difference between your preferred versions. Before this gets out of hand, why don't you two briefly explain why your preferred version is the better one (without invective!). Let's see if we can find some common ground and separate out the bones of contention. Meanwhile, I've protected the article for two weeks. No sense in getting a couple of excellent and useful editors blocked! --RegentsPark (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Complying

I have already explained my rational quite a few times. The point is half the information here is about definition and terminology, no matter how we try to disguise it. And the whole article is about an alternative definition to South Asia as these two terms are used alternatively alternatively. Check:

Alison Arnold, South Asia: the Indian subcontinent
David Christian, Maps of time: an introduction to big history‎
Jonathan B. Tucker, Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox
Hooman Peimani, Nuclear proliferation in the Indian subcontinent
Anne Digby & John Stewart, Gender, health and welfare

I strongly would recommend that most topics that have a definition that's not more-or-less universally recognized should go by the layout — definition-scope-and the rest. I'm posting my rational again:

About half the article is about defining what falls within the region referred to as "Indian Subcontinent" it is only prudent to keep that information together. Spreading out that critical information over three different section is a deterrent to understanding area or the information presented.
The section that existed as "Human geography" was all about what country comes within the scope of "Indian Subcontinent" apart from one single sentence on the population (which already is pretty undefined, but that's a separate issue). Therefore, information is better organized if that single sentence is merged into the section that existed as "Physical geography". All that was required was to call it simply - "Geography".
(since a complaint about weightage was raised) I have merged the "Definition" and "Terminology" sections to reduce the fear of undue weight. I also have split the geography section to have a section on "geography" and another on "geology". Now both can be developed further.
(and when the other party started reverting sourced and relevant information out) I kept his precious structure intact, putting back the information (which was reverted again ASAP).

BTW, I also have tried in the past to take this to larger forum (check here) and to the other party's talk page (check here). Eventually this boiled down to a very low grade edit war where one party keeps putting out rationals and the other party keeps putting out slanders. It went to the level when I posted first to the talk page to get the other party's personal approval, which was hardly forthcoming in most cases. I gave up on discussions only when the other party explicitly refused to discuss. I am still pretty much willing to discuss, here or elsewhere.

Thanks that someone finally took some notice of this affair. I had already given up on community intervention. Thank you for restoring my faith in the community. Hallelujah. Cheers. Aditya 08:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For lack of interest in discussion sans invective and verbiage the bone of contention probably isn't going to be sorted out as expected. Perhaps, we have failed to keep our interests academic. Well, a project as big and as open is probably destined end up that way. Sigh. Aditya 18:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't give up all hope :) I'm waiting to hear, hopefully with neither invective nor verbiage, from Bosonic Dressing. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we haven't heard from Bosonic Dressing, and since Aditya's rationale is plausible, I've restored his version. Note that the discussion is still open though. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)