This page has many small sections that need to further expanded. Lets make this article as great as Southeast Asia Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Low quality editorship is now destroying the article. No offense, I cannot but have to remove these sorts of stuff ([1][2]) as I still strongly believe that ignorance and third-rate political propaganda shall have no place in Wikipedia.
Editors, both anon and registered, should note that any content you added must, according to WP:CITE, come with at least one citation instead of simply {fact} tab. 219.73.86.234 (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
We need to clean up the whole "definition and usage" section which is nothing but a MESS. More editors are needed. Secondly, the inclusion of SAARC is totally offtopic (thus OR) on defining South Asia, it's as ridiculous as claiming EAS members like Australia, NewZealand and India as East Asian. 219.73.86.234 (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedia1742 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate the accuracy and authenticity associated with having language names written in their native script, given that this is the English language wikipedia is it possible to get a map of the langauges which has the language names written in English? Jason A. Recliner (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I concur. I couldn't help but also notice that the large label in the bottom right reads "Bharat" in devnaghari script. This implies that all of south asia is India and that India is all of south asia. This appears to be a frequent occurence- hopefully an unintentional one. If everyone agrees, I will edit the map to delete the "Bharat" part as all the various parts (listed in multiple languages) does not constitute India. --192.88.212.44 (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that in the list of countries in South Asia the last four are Kazakhstan, Paraguay, Serbia and Macedonia! Kazakhstan is at least in Asia but seriously, whoever the hell made that list needs to look at a map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.14.141 (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need that load of pictures? Apart from some gratuitous value what information value is the gallery adding? Are the pictures proving they are great economic centers or something? If this gallery serves no encyclopedic purpose, then I would gladly remove them, and request other editors that they do not restore it just because they can. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Why the same country flags are repeated over and over again in the article? Isn't using one flag once good enough? If there is no rationale to do this, I'll happily volunteer to remove the repetitions. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
“ | Accompany flags with country names
When a flag icon is used for the first time in a list or table, it needs to appear adjacent to its respective country (or province, etc.) name, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size. |
” |
Relevant policy says the flag may be used the first time the country is listed, the point at which you are removing the flags is the point at which they are first mentioned. Flags at the moment are only used in "Definitions and Usage" and "Territory and region data", I do not understand your flag problem, the case is no longer that there is excessive use of flags considering they are now only placed twice, both in relevant localities. Flags present in the initial list is not against Wikipedia policy Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You said it does "But, the relevant policy doesn't say so [that flags in the beginning are ok]", but WP:FLAG does not say anywhere flags in the list go against Wikipedia policy, in fact it even puts down guidelines for how flags are to be used in a list (as I cquoted before). You cannot really consider much for consensus if you have only two people (you and me) editing the article and considering you were the one making the "controversial edit", I was the one undoing it. The flags in the list are years old, you are the only and first person I know of to try (and I have a long history on this page) to get rid of them (this is excluding the people who removed the once present Tibet flag from page, as this is a conflict regarding Tibet's sovereignty and not Wikipedia policy). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
“ | Do not emphasize nationality without good reason
Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things. For example, with an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney looks like an "English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles"; without the flag next to him, he looks like an "English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles". Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" policy. |
” |
Putting flags next to a list of countries and territories does not invoke nationalism in the context of this page. If you read the policy, it is referring to people pages not region pages. The first flags in the page are not redundant, if any flags were redundant they were the since removed flags in the religion section (which I removed in reaction to your original message here) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the last colum of the table should be renamed from Coat of Arms to Emblem, Symbol, or Seal. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
i have already given the reason for deletion. please remember to atleast check the history section before commenting. the links for the economy of south asia are good. but the paragraph explaining it are highly biased and try extremely hard to show everything bad and nothing good. thats why i have deleted the paragraph but kept the links.
thanksZoomzoom316 (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
In the infobox, it includes Diego Garcia among the largest cities. Is this a joke? An average district headquarter city in Bangladesh has more people than Diego Garcia (the article itself says the island "has more buildings than people"). --Ragib (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Please, explain how this list is better than this prose, apart from those cute little flags that already appear elsewhere in the article. Perhaps you'd like some policy help here - "Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links. Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain" (from Wikipedia:Embedded list). Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Listing the countries in a region is better done as a LIST. It makes it clear to see which countries are included. A list format is standard for region pages
You are misusing the WP:MOS. Essentially, All your prose-form does it take out the spaces and flags. A list is much clearer as it much more blatant, much more visible. A reader can look at and instantly see which countries are included and which countries are included sometimes. They are not bogged down in a badly worded paragraph stretched out by references and parenthetic comments. A list makes this much clearer. In a list, a casual reader could see the Afghanistan, ignore all the refs and parentheses, then jump down to Myanmar and so on.
“ | Appropriate use
However, it can be appropriate to use a list style when the items in list are "children" of the paragraphs that precede them. Such "children" logically qualify for indentation beneath their parent description. In this case, indenting the paragraphs in list form may make them easier to read, especially if the paragraphs are very short. The following example works both with and without the bullets: |
” |
“ | Bangladesh, Bhutan,[2][3][4] India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are currently members of a regional cooperation group, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), which they jointly formed, while Great Britain. British Indian Ocean Territory is not reprsented, but the country which has sovereignty over it - United Kingdom - is an observer member of SAARC. The People's Republic of China and Iran are also observer members of the organization.
Some academic and/or cultural institutions from the United States and the United Kingdom[who?] also classify more countries and territories as South Asian. These include Afghanistan[1][5][6][7][3][4][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16](otherwise considered Central Asian or Middle-Eastern,[17][18][19][20][21], now a member of SAARC), Myanmar (otherwise considered part of Southeast Asia,[22] but for nearly a century prior to 1 April 1937, it was part of the British Raj[23] region of South Asia proper), and Tibet[5][6][11][12][13][14][16][24][25] (Otherwise considered Central Asian[26] or East Asian[27][28]). The United Nations also includes Iran (otherwise considered Southwest Asia) and Afghanistan, but not Tibet or Burma, as part of Southern Asia:[29] |
” |
You collapsed the list into
This format does not yield a short, clear, paragraph that the WP:MOS shows. On top of that several necessary segments (that I bolded to make more visible) make it more difficult to read. They get in the way and are the exact say format as they were in the list.
The comment The People's Republic of China and Iran are also observer members of the organization. (italicized above to make more visible) is out of place. There is no mention of Tibet or Iran prior to that statement. A reader could start reading the page for the very first time, and then all of a sudden they see that comment and then could ask why are only the PRC and Iran mentioned, when there are several SAARC observers.
The comment needs to be associated with the two parties they go with (Tibet and Iran), but once you do that you would make the paragraph even harder to read by putting parenthetic commentary in between text.
I am not saying that the list needs no improvements, but the prose format you made does not make it better. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Sentence by sentence analysis of WP:MOS segment that is being misused Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links.
Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not.
Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain.
Therefore, lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for detail. In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed. For example:
Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I cut off a lot of SAARC text from the list and created a new paragraph. The list now is just the countries and their flags. Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Tibet maintain their refs and parenthetical comments. These parenthetical comments were added based on an RfC opinion that say they would be a good idea. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the following what you call good copy?
The United Nations also includes Iran (and Afghanistan), but not Tibet or Burma, as part of Southern Asia:[1]
Are you really serious? Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You need to stop your blatant misuse of MOS. The MOS does not indicate anything for the removal of flags, nor does it indicate that de-listing makes the page anymore coherent. With parentheses and references in between anything useful, your prose format makes it harder to read.
Furthermore, you need to take a look at Wikipedia:Civility. You have violated Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen") plus possibly other bullets.
[Removed after told by admin that it did not apply User_talk:Thegreyanomaly#Re:_your_request]
And also, you did undo various other legitimate edits not pertaining to the list. If you are going to start an edit-war please do not revert unrelated material.
I have called on/am calling on other users who regularly edit this page to give input. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes in prose, but the original version of the page has flags on a list. No one is talking about flags in prose. We are talking about flags in a list. Example:
“ | ” |
from the page Central Europe. WP:MOS does not say no to that. The only problem with flags is when they emphasize nationality. Flags in a list of countries, when each sovereign state has their flag present does not emphasize nationality.
Once again this dispute is not about flags, it is about keeping the list in a clear format. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
See the debate immediately above this. There are claims that the prose form is easier to read, though I find highly inaccurate and find that having a list format is much better and much clearer, especially due to extensive notes and references that would "stick" in between useful text in a paragraph formation. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the prose version. Lists work well when the criteria for inclusion in the list is relatively (not necessarily absolutely) clear. However, when membership is fuzzy, it is better to use prose to convey that uncertainty. Lists have the unwanted side-effect of inadvertently codifying membership (long footnotes notwithstanding). In the case of South Asia, membership is at best fuzzy. Burma, as a case in point, is very fuzzy. Historically, much of the British interest in Burma was as a counterbalance to French interest in what is now SE Asia. However, parts of Burma, particularly the Arakan and Chin area have long been identified with their adjoining Indian territories of Bengal and Assam/Manipur. Add the fact that Burma was, for a fairly hefty chunk of recent time, a part of British India, and you get a confused mess. A neat list-enabling categorization of Burma does not exist. A similar case can be made for Afghanistan. Historically, Afghanistan has served as a sort of pipleine between India and Central Asia and, depending on the historical point of interest, it could lie in Central or South Asia. Add Tibet to the mix and a list would be sort of like trying to get a bunch of pre-schoolers into line! No, the prose version makes more sense to me. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I weakly prefer the bullet point version, it's easier to read (Thegreyanomaly's argument). I agree with RegentsPark's point.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Along with a number of core countries, the South Asia differes in inclusion by different clubbing of countries, though essentially it encompasses countries that were part of the former British Indian Empire.[2] When the Centre of South Asian Studies at the University of Cambridge established in 1964, it was primarily responsible for promoting within the University the study of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, the Himalayan Kingdoms (Nepal, Bhutan, and Sikkim, which has been annexed by India in 1975[3]), and Burma (now Myanmar). But, over the years it has also extended its activities to include Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, the Philippines and Hong Kong.[4] The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), a contiguous block of countries, started in with seven countries — Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka — when it was established in 1985, but was extended to include Afghanistan as an eight member in 2006.[5] The World Bank grouping includes only the original seven members of SAARC, and leaves Afghanistan out.[6] The United Nations Population Information Network (POPIN) includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka as part of South Asia, while Maldives, in view of its characteristics, was admitted as a member country of the Pacific POPIN subregional network in principle.[7] Culturally, though not politically, Tibet has been identified as a part of South Asia,[8]. Afghanistan is otherwise considered as Central Asian or Middle-Eastern, Myanmar as Southeast Asian, and Tibet is otherwise considered Central Asian or East Asian.[9]
I still prefer a list as it allows a reader to skip a lot of reading if they are not interested in the several definitions; however, I have absolutely no problem, with both being present if feasible.
Regarding the excessive refs on Tibet and Afghanistan, they need to stay otherwise we will have the problem with the vandal POV IPs from Hong Kong removing them from the page all the time. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC) (Side note: Mondays and Tuesday I try to stay off of Wikipedia due to weekly exams I have every Wednesday morning, so I will not be available for much discussion until sometime Wednesday night Pacific Time) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
No explanation has been given to indicate (apart from a cultural connection with Tibet) why British Indian Ocean Territory and Tibet Autonomous Region/Tibet should be defined as part of South Asia. I am not ruling them out, but both would need valid sources cited to establish their unorthodox claims. The Tibet entry has been followed by 9 cites, and not one made eny reference to Tibet being a part of South Asia. The closest one went was to show, in a map, that Tibet has common border with South Asian countries. Not nearly good enough.
There also is the factor of including all observer states of SAARC as part of South Asia, but unfortunately Japan is an observer member. I don't think Japan can, by any figment of imagination, be a part of South Asia. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I copied and pasted the justifications of the refs below. There were multiple RfCs over this in the past, and the ultimate decision was more or less that it should be mentioned that Tibet is sometimes considered South Asian, especially given the academic origin of all the references Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
http://web.archive.org/web/20080213145516/http://www.ias.berkeley.edu/southasia/aboutus.html CSAS seeks to develop and advance the scholarly study of the region conventionally known as South Asia, comprising the nations of India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Tibet and the Maldives.
http://www.southasiaoutreach.wisc.edu/countries.htm You click on Tibet on the map http://www.southasiaoutreach.wisc.edu/countries/tibet.htm Tibet is included as a country of South Asia
http://www.ii.umich.edu/csas/aboutus/contactus Our division focuses on the following South Asia countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Tibet
http://www.brandeis.edu/registrar/catalog/one-subject.php?subject_id=6550 one of the world’s most populous and significant regions, includes the modern nations of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and in certain contexts Afghanistan, Maldives, Myanmar, and Tibet.
http://www.basas.org.uk/ This one is somewhat fuzzy. They clearly show a Tibetan flag, though they don't write Tibet
http://southasia.rutgers.edu/ SASP have chosen to define the term 'South Asia' broadly, to include the nations of Bhutan, Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Tibet, as well as the bordering nations of Afghanistan and Myanmar.
http://www.asianstudies.emory.edu/sa/languages.htm This one is making mostly a linguistic argument. This South Asian studies department includes Tibetan, and therefore Tibet. I admit this one is semi-fuzzy
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsas/departments/south-asian-studies/department.html The Program in South Asian Studies centers on the culturally diverse region composed of India, Pakistan, Nepal, Tibet, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
No intent to offend, but simple Ctrl+F's on Tibet could make these quotes very visible. I am added all the citations for Tibet back. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- http://artsandsciences.virginia.edu/soasia/about/index.html (this one was missed) Coordinating academic studies, outreach programs, and research relating to Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Tibet, the Center offers a wide range of courses in South Asia's languages and the disciplines, a comprehensive library, as well as educational and cultural programs in the community. Once again referring to Tibet as South Asia
04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to clearly differentiate between historical context and today. I can see Burma being discussed as part of British India. The "sometimes" designation is ambiguous and lacks clarity. It implies the present. In fact, the article currently reads:
The sentence reads as though it's still true in the present but the citation is a 1936 article (Arthur Berriedale Keith, A Constitutional History of India: 1600-1935, pages 440-444, Methuen & Co, 1936), one year before Burma was separated from the Raj. How convenient! It's also rather disingenuous to form the definition simply based on some universities have organized their academic departments--especially when the broader context isn't given.
This article reeks of POV, supported by a collection of citations, some of which are half-truths. I don't see or get the need to have this artificially enlarged South Asia.Hybernator (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not and should not ignore the views of academia. Even some geopolitical organizations included Burma (http://www.un.org/Depts/escap/pop/bulletin/v07n2ft1.htm). Just because you don't like the views of these organizations does not mean that you can just become disgruntled and remove them (as you did on Burma, violating the 3RR rule) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We are not looking at how academics are structure their departments, that is not what we are talking about how they define South Asia. If you look at the university sources. These university departments are providing their definitions of South Asia and the page is citing them. Read the section above and you will clearly see that this isn't about structuring this is how universities fundamentally define South Asia, if you don't like that tough luck. Academics have authorities that should and must be respected by Wikipedia. Just because you don't like their definitions (which we have cited thoroughly), doesn't mean you can remove them or contemplate removing them. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
first of all there is absolutely NO REASON to put a summary page in the economy section.
why do we need it when there are indepth links that describe the economies of various south asian countries???
i have deleted some of the materials that are extremely biased. but i have kept the paragraph that are neutral. thanks Zoomzoom316 (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence claiming India to be the 'Dominant political power' is not needed or relevant, it's also unsourced ( links to something about the European parliament??) and seems to largely base this on geographical size and nuclear weapons... I suggest someone takes a serious look at correcting this section or it'll get removed as not affirming to Wiki's NPOV rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K.Khokhar (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The first source isn't really neutral as it's written by an Indian and the wording is pretty biased, though the second seems reliable, it looks to be more concerned with the military and strategic balance between the countries which it clearly says has been changing both ways over the last few decades. Political dominance, in my understanding, would mean India's ability to influence policy in other south Asian nations, this is clearly not the case. I think the section should stick to dealing with democratic improvements and regional economic co-operation groups (such as saarc).Khokhar (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I updated the Maldives from dark green to intermediate green. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about Afghanistan (which is often counted as being Central Asia), but I'm sure that the Maldives definitely IS part of South Asia (sometimes even included as part of the Subcontinent). I've never seen any other description for it --Maurice45 (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't either, I just updated the map to be consistent with what the page says. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I fully understand that South Asian observers traditionally have special feeling on the Tibetan exiles, but it's inappropriate and unprofessional adding the TGIE coat of arms for the PRC-TAR entry. POV removed - MainBody (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I am neutral on the issue of the coat of arms. (i.e. I have no real opinion on it) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
There are several issues with the section. Even before the section starts to explain the definition and scope of the term, there is a whole set of opinion as to how the term Indian subcontinent is inappropriate compared to other "neutral" terms.
I had made changes to the section and provided several sources to back the content, but they were reverted.
To all, this is an encyclopedia, not some news journal. Sentences such as ""South Asia" has become the preferred term for its neutrality" do not belong here. Just because one academic says so, it does not mean the opinion is shared by all. Be specific, like "According to Mr. X, "South Asia" is a more preferred...".
To end, one cannot argue the fact that "Indian subcontinent" is a more popular term than several other variants mentioned —
"Indian subcontinent" gives 1,890,000 web results
"Indo-Pak subcontinent" gives 154,000 web results
"South Asian subcontinent" gives 40,000 web results
Thanks, --Nosedown (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see you had started the discussion, probably due to your user name being different here.
Well I don't disagree with you as far as the semantics is concerned i.e the 'preferred term' and such can be an indicator of POV at times but one of the most important considerations to keep wikipedia functioning is the need for consensus, I don't even disagree, for the most part, with your edit but such sensitive sections need discussion, almost as a pre-requisite. This is because, for e.g, your edit states that the 'Indian subcontinent' or 'South Asia' is "simply referred to as India", this is not only not neutral but far from reality (post 1947 at least) and using the same principle you stated; just because one citation refers to it as such doesn't mean it's the norm. Khokhar (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
'The subcontinent', as noted, was chosen for it's neutrality, and hence a consensus amongst editors seems to have been reached, consensus is equally important on wikipedia, otherwise you'd have constant edit warring which defeats the objectives of an editable encyclopedia. Regarding your reference to Indian Subcontinent, it's true, it is a very common term but so is 'The subcontinent' as it's also equally unique in usage to South Asia unlike 'peninsula' which could be refering to a number of different locations such as Iberia or Arabia. As for the merger of South Asia and the old article 'Indian Subcontinent', this is in fact primarily why the term 'subcontinent' for it's neutrality becomes more important because this article suggests that the terms are synonomous or to put it another way we can refer to the Subcontinent, amongst other definitions, as the 'South Asian Subcontinent', hence why the inclusion of 'the Subcontinent' into this article becomes viable within the 'definitions' section as then all the varying forms of the expression can be discussed as they all contain the common word 'Subcontinent', I do not believe many editors will agree with 'South Asia' being defined as just the 'Indian Subcontinent' and this very section explains this in a detailed and well sourced manner and takes into account most views while remaining neutral. Khokhar (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The very first words in the section are 'Indian Subcontinent', then why must we have 'Indian' in the heading; which refers to all the 'Subcontinent' definitions? as my Punjabi heritage is brought into question I guess you both are not 'Indian'? seems to me you need 'Indian' put before everything and so are pushing forward your views even though the 'last four months' are testament to the current format being generally accepted, also the word Indian Subcontinent is more historical because the area was almost entirely known as 'British India' before 1947, this is no longer the case as has been stated within the section with multiple refernces, Seems to me the merging of the two articles was not such a great idea, as at least it had the word 'Indian' in the heading regrdless of the content... the section explains why only the term 'Subcontinent' is used and if people need the word Indian included then perhaps write a new section or better yet ask an administrator to de-merge the 'Indian Subcontinent article' back to it's former state.Khokhar (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The section, in the context of the wider article, was labled as such to show that 'a Subcontinent' exists in South Asia, and that 'that subcontinent' is referred to in many ways icluding some writers (all well referenced) consider it to be synonomous with South Asia itself [6], I tried to explain this while remaining completely neutral, clearly this goes on deaf ears and we get the usual accusations of bias, like in most similar conversations, Freud's projection seems extremely relevant, in any case, I have no intention of either reverting nor taking further part in this discussion as clearly their is no point as 'a consensus' has been reached (among Indians). Khokhar (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | self-contained landmass which is geographically and culturally separated from the rest of the Asian continent | ” |
I saw sentence in a past revision (luckily K Khokar caught it). This is highly inaccurate, as South Asia has had strong cultural with Southeast Asia on the east and Central Asia and West Asia on the west. Please revert this sentence if it creeps its way back on to the page in the future (as, as most of you can tell, I am not much of a "regular editor" of this page anymore)
Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the whole of the State of J&K is not an integral part of Republic of India. But, that really has nothing to do with the British Raj. The Raj had arrangements very different from the Republic. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
That's your POV, it's not an integral part of India because it's disputed, in fact India doesn't even control half of the 'princely state', according to your logic; I could state the whole former princely state an integral part of Pakistan.. Khokhar (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
what's it got to do with the British Raj? this is what the sentence reads
"It also encompasses the 562 protected princely states that became integral parts of the Union of India, but was not directly ruled by the Raj,[5] including Hyderabad State, Kingdom of Mysore, State of Jammu and Kashmir, Baroda, and Gwalior.[6] Sikkim joined India in 1975"
The sentence is constructed (assuming good faith) so as to imply that Jammu and kashmir is an integral part of India along with the other mentioned states, this is obviously not true, so the sentence needs to be correctly rephrased to avoid this.
ps. I didn't read your first reply correctly hence my first response was a bit off.Khokhar (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm removing The princely state of Jammu and kashmir from the sentence until it is reconstructed correctly.Khokhar (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Removing Integral doesn't really effect the structure and implications of the section, in fact integral isn't really the issue anyway, the problem is that the section implies that the mentioned states are 'all' a part of the Union of India, this is not the case as the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, as a whole, is disputed and not a part of the union of India, to maintain neutrality this needs to be mentioned unambiguously if Jammu and Kashmir is mentioned at all as it's a very sensitive issue. Khokhar (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Aditya, that's sounds about right. Regent's park, there is already consensus that the princely state of J and K is disputed and this has bee discussed enough already, there are also quite a few United nations' resolutions stating this fact not to mention that India doesn't even control half, so there is no ambiguity there. At least you started off by admitting it was your POV. Khokhar (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Also you might want to read up on the princely state of Junagadh or in the case of Hyderabad, Operation Polo. Khokhar (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I just made some additions to the section and named some prominent princely states that joined the dominion of Pakistan, this way we also avoid any ambiguity over whether they are still part of south Asia.Khokhar (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This user made uncited nonsense edits to the page. They have also made up a region of South-central Asia and Peninsular India on Flags of Asia. These are completed uncited POV edits attempting to separate Pakistan (and Afghanistan) from South Asia. I have reverted them, but in case the IP repeats them, please revert again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added the latest numbers from the unicef 2008 report.
i have put the references along with it as well. thanksFkfjdf (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You have been removing cited content pertaining to the Global Hunger Index. You must stop removing content or I will have to report you to an admin. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
my friends i have changed everything as you asked. i have added the new information with proper references. this topic has deep importance for every person in india and the other south asian countries. thanksFkfjdf (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
How does Pakistan have the seond highest per capita gdp? Look at the new world bank fact that it clearly states that Pakistan is third after India and Sri Lanka. [7] user talk:Dewan357
I agree: Pakistan most likely should not be listed as having the second highest GDP per capita but neither are India and Sri Lanka first and second respectively. Depending on what list you're looking at the order would be as follows: Bhutan, Maldives, Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan. [8] [9] --Encyclopedia1742 (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Its written Hindi and Urdu are official languages of SAARC which is completely false information. There is NO OFFICIAL LANGUAGE in SAARC. Please administrator correct this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.49.109.157 (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)