![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
Pakistan is the 6th most populous country and among top three fastest economies just to clarify. Secondly the so called term "indian subcontinent" has no credible standing or even a reason. A continent is a continent, what is the logic of adding the "subs"?. It is a lame attempt to exemplify India in the region and in fact goes against Indian attractiveness as it is seen as misleading. The image (map) is a proof of that, it does not look like a map of a subcontinent, it looks like the map of India. I am sure that graphic designers in Pakistan would draw it differently (but why would they). The arrogant blunders & childish recognition attempts of the previous generations should be recognized and terminated. South Asia is a credible & logical term, let us just stick to that. The so called Indo-Pak or Indian subcontinent sounds more like a joke.
"Nobody calls the subcontinent "Indo-Pak"; it's been called the Indian subcontinent for centuries"?!
Not to scream at you--I think we have a nice conversation going here--but you say yourself (in another place) that Pakistanis, do. And the 7th largest nation in the world is "nobody"?
And I might be wrong, but the word "India" does not pre-date the arrival of European colonialists, does it? The words used for centuries were "Hind", "Hindustan", "Bharat" and so on. No?
Why the resistance to having a more non-nation-state-specific characterization? It's not like you to be chauvisitic, Lord Saahab, so you must have another reason...
I have become increasingly comfortable with terms like "South Asia". [Though even that phrase has the baggage of often being considered as a cover used by chauvinistic Indians to imply that India=South Asia.]-- iFaqeer 23:16, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
The vast majority, indeed very close to all books printed outside of India, before and after Independence, refer to the subcontinent as the "Indian subcontinent." If you run a search on Google for "Indo-Pak subcontinent" you'll come up with only 639 hits, and practically 8 or 9 out of 10 of all the results are headed by Pakistani or Muslim websites. This is clearly a nationalist-cultural bias pushing this name. A search for "Indian subcontinent"? It yields about 155,000 results, the majority of which have nothing to do with Indian or Hindu websites. Last time I checked 639 was around only .4% of 155,000.
Can't we tone down the statement that:
a little? Maybe something like:
-- iFaqeer 21:06, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
What do folks think of my latest changes?-- iFaqeer 22:53, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
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)
Excellent. The reinstatement is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.197.240 ( talk • contribs) of 20.05.06
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)
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)
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)
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)
Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.
Thanks
Atulsnischal 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Comments? -- Regents Park ( sink with my stocks) 17:36, 27 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)
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
Southern Asia is used by the UN, that is why it is mentioned
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
06:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
"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)."
"Some definitions may also include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Tibet, and even Iran."
^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 [3] . 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)
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)
I agree with merging Indian subcontenent with southern asia!!!! Danspore ( talk) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
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( talk • contribs) 17:08, 14 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)
"Europe is just a peninsula since it is on the Eurasian Plate." I haven't removed this, but it's balderdash. More should be made in the article of the uselessness of "subcontinent" in contemporary geography. -- Wetman 01:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Nobody in the world ever calls the Middle East a subcontinent. Although google searches for "Middle East subcontinent" return a large number, a slightly careful reading will show that they are actually referring to "Middle East / Subcontinent" i.e. sections of websites devoted to the Middle East AND the (Indian) subcontinent. In that context I would like to remove the pointless, mis-informative, confusing and downright WRONG characterization / presence of "the Middle East" in this article. 202.141.40.50 ( talk) 03:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any valid source that support the following statements:
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( talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 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. [1] Due to similar scope, the terms "South Asia" and "Indian subcontinent" are used by some academics interchangeably. [1] [2] [3] Due to political sensitivities, some prefer to use the terms "South Asian Subcontinent", [4] the "Indo-Pak Subcontinent", [5] or simply "South Asia" [6] 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". [7] [8] 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. [9] However, this opinion is not shared by all. [10]
By dictionary entries, the term subcontinent signifies "having a certain geographical or political independence" from the rest of the continent, [11] or "a vast and more or less self-contained subdivision of a continent." [12] 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. [13]
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). [14] Another clubbing includes only Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, the mainstay of the British Raj, as the Subcontinent. [15] 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". [16] 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, [17] while Tibet and Nepal are included [18] and excluded [19] intermittently, depending on the context.
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)
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( talk • contribs) 01:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
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( talk • contribs) 08:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. Aditya( talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
A popular self-joke in Argentina to mock the ultra-nationalism and boosterism of the Argentines of their country is actually a "subcontinent". But, for any large landmass to be considered a geological/physiological continent apart from another, it requires every single type of ecological environment in one place (in the case of Australia as the "small(est)" continent). For Argentines to use the Andes, the Parana river and the Amazon rainforest as continental boundaries, would probably stand out as a region apart from Brazil or Chile and northern South America. It's a "tongue-in-cheek" expression among Argentines like their Chilean neighbors tell a joke on Neil Armstrong the first man on the moon discovered Chilean miners have already claimed the Moon as their territory. The joke points out that Chile had political claims of Antarctica conflicted with both the Argentines and the British, and Antarctica is also a wasteland. + 71.102.12.55 ( talk) 04:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
Pakistan is the 6th most populous country and among top three fastest economies just to clarify. Secondly the so called term "indian subcontinent" has no credible standing or even a reason. A continent is a continent, what is the logic of adding the "subs"?. It is a lame attempt to exemplify India in the region and in fact goes against Indian attractiveness as it is seen as misleading. The image (map) is a proof of that, it does not look like a map of a subcontinent, it looks like the map of India. I am sure that graphic designers in Pakistan would draw it differently (but why would they). The arrogant blunders & childish recognition attempts of the previous generations should be recognized and terminated. South Asia is a credible & logical term, let us just stick to that. The so called Indo-Pak or Indian subcontinent sounds more like a joke.
"Nobody calls the subcontinent "Indo-Pak"; it's been called the Indian subcontinent for centuries"?!
Not to scream at you--I think we have a nice conversation going here--but you say yourself (in another place) that Pakistanis, do. And the 7th largest nation in the world is "nobody"?
And I might be wrong, but the word "India" does not pre-date the arrival of European colonialists, does it? The words used for centuries were "Hind", "Hindustan", "Bharat" and so on. No?
Why the resistance to having a more non-nation-state-specific characterization? It's not like you to be chauvisitic, Lord Saahab, so you must have another reason...
I have become increasingly comfortable with terms like "South Asia". [Though even that phrase has the baggage of often being considered as a cover used by chauvinistic Indians to imply that India=South Asia.]-- iFaqeer 23:16, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
The vast majority, indeed very close to all books printed outside of India, before and after Independence, refer to the subcontinent as the "Indian subcontinent." If you run a search on Google for "Indo-Pak subcontinent" you'll come up with only 639 hits, and practically 8 or 9 out of 10 of all the results are headed by Pakistani or Muslim websites. This is clearly a nationalist-cultural bias pushing this name. A search for "Indian subcontinent"? It yields about 155,000 results, the majority of which have nothing to do with Indian or Hindu websites. Last time I checked 639 was around only .4% of 155,000.
Can't we tone down the statement that:
a little? Maybe something like:
-- iFaqeer 21:06, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
What do folks think of my latest changes?-- iFaqeer 22:53, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
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)
Excellent. The reinstatement is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.197.240 ( talk • contribs) of 20.05.06
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)
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)
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)
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)
Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.
Thanks
Atulsnischal 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Comments? -- Regents Park ( sink with my stocks) 17:36, 27 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)
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
Southern Asia is used by the UN, that is why it is mentioned
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
06:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
"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)."
"Some definitions may also include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Tibet, and even Iran."
^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 [3] . 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)
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)
I agree with merging Indian subcontenent with southern asia!!!! Danspore ( talk) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
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( talk • contribs) 17:08, 14 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)
"Europe is just a peninsula since it is on the Eurasian Plate." I haven't removed this, but it's balderdash. More should be made in the article of the uselessness of "subcontinent" in contemporary geography. -- Wetman 01:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Nobody in the world ever calls the Middle East a subcontinent. Although google searches for "Middle East subcontinent" return a large number, a slightly careful reading will show that they are actually referring to "Middle East / Subcontinent" i.e. sections of websites devoted to the Middle East AND the (Indian) subcontinent. In that context I would like to remove the pointless, mis-informative, confusing and downright WRONG characterization / presence of "the Middle East" in this article. 202.141.40.50 ( talk) 03:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any valid source that support the following statements:
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( talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 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. [1] Due to similar scope, the terms "South Asia" and "Indian subcontinent" are used by some academics interchangeably. [1] [2] [3] Due to political sensitivities, some prefer to use the terms "South Asian Subcontinent", [4] the "Indo-Pak Subcontinent", [5] or simply "South Asia" [6] 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". [7] [8] 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. [9] However, this opinion is not shared by all. [10]
By dictionary entries, the term subcontinent signifies "having a certain geographical or political independence" from the rest of the continent, [11] or "a vast and more or less self-contained subdivision of a continent." [12] 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. [13]
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). [14] Another clubbing includes only Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, the mainstay of the British Raj, as the Subcontinent. [15] 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". [16] 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, [17] while Tibet and Nepal are included [18] and excluded [19] intermittently, depending on the context.
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)
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( talk • contribs) 01:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
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( talk • contribs) 08:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. Aditya( talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
A popular self-joke in Argentina to mock the ultra-nationalism and boosterism of the Argentines of their country is actually a "subcontinent". But, for any large landmass to be considered a geological/physiological continent apart from another, it requires every single type of ecological environment in one place (in the case of Australia as the "small(est)" continent). For Argentines to use the Andes, the Parana river and the Amazon rainforest as continental boundaries, would probably stand out as a region apart from Brazil or Chile and northern South America. It's a "tongue-in-cheek" expression among Argentines like their Chilean neighbors tell a joke on Neil Armstrong the first man on the moon discovered Chilean miners have already claimed the Moon as their territory. The joke points out that Chile had political claims of Antarctica conflicted with both the Argentines and the British, and Antarctica is also a wasteland. + 71.102.12.55 ( talk) 04:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |