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)
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'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)
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)
Oppose.. The subcontinent is only a 'region' within south Asia and India is only a 'region/country' within the the subcontinent..that's like saying north America is apparently synonymous with the USA so let's name North America to USA..
Khokhar (
talk) 15:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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'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)
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)
Oppose.. The subcontinent is only a 'region' within south Asia and India is only a 'region/country' within the the subcontinent..that's like saying north America is apparently synonymous with the USA so let's name North America to USA..
Khokhar (
talk) 15:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)