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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Moreover, I am accused of vandalising by removing "chunk of reference", please provide evidence (times, dates and references' name) or I will go on with my copyediting and citation-adding per WP:CITE and WP:BOLD. 219.73.86.234 (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed- this article has gone to hell in a hand basket! It was much better before- more is not always better. For example, whoever added the financial centers, thanks for the effort but I'm not entirely convinced that it belongs here. Perhas a link to a separate "South Asian Financial Centers" page would be better? Will try to edit this but am busy till next year- maybe by '09 I will be able to contribute more time to clean-up.

Encyclopedia1742 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 :)

• "AfgCIA" :
  • {{cite web|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html#People |title= Afghanistan |date= December 13, 2007|work= [[The World Factbook]]|publisher= [[Central Intelligence Agency]]}}
  • CIA world factbook, [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html#Geo Afghanistan - Geography (Location: Southern Asia)]
  • [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html#People CIA - The World Factbook - Afghanistan<!-- Bot generated title -->]

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think this language map should be removed (I hadn't noticed this before). There is not much point in having a map using local scripts on the English Wikipedia. (Feel free to remove the devanagari Bharat as well). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

According to this edit summary - "flags in the beginning are ok. They are present in similar sections on other region pages". But, the relevant policy doesn't say so, and other stuff exists is no reason include or exclude anything. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thegreyanomaly, please, Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved like you did with this and this. Use the talk page instead, please. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

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. MOS:FLAG#Accompany_flags_with_country_names

”

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)[reply]

Where does the policy say "the flag may be used the first time the country is listed"? Anyways, its a small thing, have your way till another editor comes and does something about it. This is tiring me off already. And, you have gone for a revert before consensus again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The policy also says "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason", and those flags were kind of redundant, as they already appear in the article elsewhere (more appropriately). And, what controversial edit are you talking of? I posted the reason and waited for a week or something before making the edit... ah! what's the point. Have it your way (just, please, do not copy-paste the same answer to both talk pages. at least that redundancy you can avoid). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• North Africa - list at very top albeit no flags
• East Asia - List included with flags
• Southeast Asia - list, albeit flags in box at side
• Southwest Asia - List included with flags
• Central Europe - List included with flags
• Northern Europe - List included with flags
• Southern Europe - List included with flags

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)[reply]

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.

• However, this articles is not more made up of lists than other region pages

Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not.

• This prose is just a clumping of the list and the amount of content associated with each part of the list

Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain.

• Not in this case. It was mostly just the list without the flags and spaces with a reference turned into a comment and with two prior statements fused and misplaced (referring "The People's Republic of China and Iran are also observer members of the organization")

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)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" (or, "What about article X?") is more of a fallacy than an argument. What you have missed here completely is the attempt to put the information in a coherent flow. I understand that an absence of those cute little flags were very upsetting, but the text they accompanied is not substantially more than anything but country names coupled with strange long series of footnote links. Did you take a look at the copy beyond those cute little flags ever? Do you really think the copy makes much sense beyond a flat listing of names? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at a compromise[edit]

[3]

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)[reply]

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]

•  Iran (Otherwise considered Southwest Asia)

Are you really serious? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would request everyone to stop reverting each other's work, otherwise the article would need protection. Now, a quick comment on Thegreyanomaly's statement above, the MoS *DOES* comment on the use of flags. Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Avoiding_flag_problems. In particular, it says that Do_not_use_flags_in_general_article_prose. --Ragib (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:

“

Austria  Czech Republic  Germany  Hungary  Liechtenstein  Poland  Slovakia  Slovenia   Switzerland

”

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I propose the following text, which does away with unrelated refs like this and meaningless refs like this. Interestingly, the previous text was almost entirely based on this paper, which obviously serves only point of view.

Comment by RegentsPark[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks. I am putting the prose version into the article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Lalit Jagannath[edit]

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)[reply]

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]

Reference[edit]

Further discussion[edit]

I am not putting the new text right in, replacing the old text, because of the unnecessary feud that might cause, though I believe this seed of a text can be enhanced and expanded beautifully (I am willing to do as much research as I can to help it, if no other volunteer is found immediately). But, I guess, a third party opinion would be needed before replacing the old text. Thank you. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's alright. Any particular editor's absence should not be a problem. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, therefore nobody owns an article. The community can take care of things. Good luck with the exams. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is an encyclopedia. Not a Dr. Seuss kiddy story book. If a reader isn't interested in information, that reader wouldn't even come here. Please, let an encyclopedia become and remain an encyclopedia. Protecting a hotchpotch of list that doesn't validate or explain isn't helping that. As for the vandals, there's always the revert option, which i believe you know how to use. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem areas[edit]

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)[reply]

I have noticed the 9 cites about Tibet being in South Asia too, Thegreyanomaly put them there. I have mentioned on talk page of Tibet a couple times, some references for this and reference for Tibet being in central Asia do not really follow Wikipedia guidelines for reference, as they do not talk about the topic (Tibet's geographic location) directly. I didn't want to discourage anybody by removing the reference, although hopefully there will be better reference for those statements. Chadsnook (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tibet justifications[edit]

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.

• CSAS, Berkley has retracted that definition from their website. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• http://southasia.berkeley.edu/what_we_do.php no they have not Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Under the title "Tibet", followed by "countries of South Asia" the only geopolitical statement made on the page is "Tibet lies at the centre of Asia". The map shows it as an integral part of China. If this is about the cultural relation, as opposed to a geopolitical country clubbing, this is better covered by the bookcite now. You are most welcome to develop the coverage of that cultural connection. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Put into context with other diverging definitions, it really isn't as important as to clutter up the leader. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Treated the same as University of Michigan. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.basas.org.uk/ This one is somewhat fuzzy. They clearly show a Tibetan flag, though they don't write Tibet

• Treated the same as University of Michigan and Brandeis. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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)

I am incorporating the relevant information into the article (not completed yet), which should be a better choice than a long series of links merely justifying a vague inclusion of Tibet. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's worth mentioning some consider Tibet to be part of South Asia. After you posted your 9 references on the talk page of Tibet, I was the first one to include your statement in the paragraph to continue the discussion of Geography of Tibet. What I said earlier today was that some of the references you provided did not talk about the geographic location of Tibet directly. (eg. the one with a flag but did not mention it in words) Some of the reference define Tibet to be South Asia "culturally", that's also why many Tibetan study programs are included in South Asian studies. Many references you listed from the universities were introductions of their South Asian study programs, they were not strictly trying to define the geography of South Asia. Chadsnook (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the statement that "South Asia typically' consists of Bangladesh, the British Indian Ocean Territories, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka." is so over-the-top and lacking in reliability, that I can only propose and immediate removal of the whole sentence. Untruth, half-truth and force-fits are no way to build an encyclopedia. I am still researching on the Tibet thingy, and have found no source (including the above) that clubs Tibet together with other South Asian countries politically, though cultural connections are mentioned. Some others are so fuzzy that they are only good to be completely ignored. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Tibet, true it is not geologically/geographically or geopolitical South Asia; however, the fact that Tibet is considered for South Asia by academics for cultural reasons, should not be omittedThegreyanomaly (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. It's not being omitted at all. Rather, it's being put irrevocably into the context. This way it would be harder to challenge, as it is less ambiguous and totally based on facts, not opinions. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar/Burma?[edit]

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:

"Along with a number of core countries, South Asia differs in inclusion by different clubbing of countries, though essentially it mostly encompasses countries that were part of the former British Indian Empire,[2] including the current territories of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh at the core, but also including Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Burma (officially Myanmar) and Sikkim.[3]"

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)[reply]

Do you believe that the way universities organize their academic departments has no bearing on reality? Still, I agree that the sentence you quote above is misleading (though the one in the lead is not). Perhaps "South Asia is usually considered to consist of the following countries: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives, and Bhutan." (This much seems to be reasonably clear!) "However, some historical definitions also include Afghanistan and Burma (Myanmar)." About the referencing, it is important to realize that the term South Asia is entirely a contemporary one and exists solely to separate the historical India (with a large footprint) from the present India (a smaller footprint) to adequately address nationalistic feelings of other entities in South Asia (and I don't mean that in a pejorative way). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most universities don't maintain even Asian studies departments, let alone Southeast Asian studies departments. But that doesn't mean Asia, or Southeast Asia doesn't exist. It's much more meaningful and intellectually honest to discuss what those "South Asia" departments actually teach. None of the quotes here says anything about what those departments actually teach, or claims that Burma/Iran/Tibet are included in the South Asia Studies department although SE Asia/Middle East/East Asia departments exist.

Besides, South Asia should primarily be a geographical term, not a substitute for some misguided Indian nationalism. Not sure why the need to aggrandize this South Asia definition on very filmsy quotes, which as discussed above are quite disingenuous. The cultural legacy of India is so much greater than this petty definition.Hybernator (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia and India are not interchangeable. India is part of South Asia. Plenty of universities hold various Asian studies departments, if there were so few of them that have Asian studies departments, we would not be able to have such a large number of sources. Why these academics define South Asia the ways they do is an interesting topic, but on Wikipedia we are not supposed to engage in OR to try to answer why they define that as such. We are not using flimsy quotes. Aditya Kabir recently spent a lot of time rebuilding a lot of the article. At that each South Asia academic definition was looked into and adjusted on the page to clearly provide the definition. South Asian studies department define South Asia and then teach courses based on what their faculty want to teach. For example, most people (if not all) agree Nepal is part of South Asia. For example, at UC Berkeley, our Center for South Asian Studies (through the Department of South and Southeast Asian) does not have any courses (to my knowledge) specifically about Nepal, but that does not mean Nepal is not part of South Asia. On the other hand, they support classes specifically on Tibet (i.e. South Asian C114: Tibetan Buddhism), even though Tibet isn't always considered South Asia. Listening to what definitions academic organizations provide is much more reliable than focusing on what types of courses they offer. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, not disgruntled; just amazed at people's insecurities in action, surely under the guise of reporting. Quoting selectively doesn't belong in a purportedly encyclopedic article, which ought to have a qualitative analysis and be more than a result of google searches on quotes will support one position. I just did a search on un.org and find Burma is listed as SE Asia; e.g., http://cyberschoolbus.un.org/infonation3/45.asp. Even if Burma or Tibet or Iran happens to be grouped, does it mean we totally throw out our judgment? (Just because Australia is often grouped with Asia/SE Asia, I wouldn't write Australia is part of SE Asia, not in an encyclopedic article).

But that's beside the point. Just don't understand the need to claim more than it really is! A smaller S Asia doesn't take anything away from the contributions of India to SE Asia and beyond. To me, India throughout history has been the "ideas" nation, not one bent on political subjugation. Hope one is more secure and confident about his heritage.Hybernator (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The academics get to define South Asia the way they want to. They have their authority, and if they wish to define South Asia broadly, they have the right to and Wikipedia should state how they define South Asia. Using self-judgment to outright ignore the views of academics is non-NPOV. If a sizeable number of academics cited Australia as being part of Southeast Asia (however ridiculous it may sound to an individual), it would still be adviseable to put Australia on the Southeast Asia page making it clear that it's inclusion is not completely standard. As for citations, I admit the Myanmar citations are considerably weaker than the Afghanistan and Tibet citations. Most of the Myanmar citations were not added by me, there were a few I had added a long time ago after random users kept adding Myanmar along time ago Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with citing the academics but not *merely* based on how the academic departments are structured.Hybernator (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hybernator, I really don't see your point. Could you, please, clarify? As I understand, a very recent source, and a highly reliable and academic source at that, says that South Asia is essentially the territories of the British Raj. Then a source from the Raj times is quoted (another highly reliable source) to describe the Raj territories. Where exactly do you see a problem here? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aditya, please see my opening comment about the 1936 quote to define South Asia. C'mon, be serious. It's ok to quote a 1936 citation but please don't use the present tense. I haven't taken it out yet because I want to see how the primary editors of this article choose to conduct. The problem is defining what *should* essentially be a geographic term into a political one or a cultural one, with the help of some citations scraped together from the web. The British Raj *was* a political entity. It's ok to define Russia's Asian territories in North Asia. Tibet? Singapore's culture is still highly influenced by the Chinese culture but Singapore isn't part of East Asia. Iran inclusion is based on an announcement about a 1996 UN program. C'mon. By using filmsy quotes, this article reads as though it's written by some misguided Indian nationalists who for some reason have the need to expand the definition to fit theirs. To an outsider who just read the article a few weeks ago, I find this could well have been written by the RSS. One person's opinion to be sure, but please take a deep breath and re-read it again. Ask yourselves if the article in its present state is really based on reliable quotes or just a bunch of any supporting quote you can find to support whatever preconceived definitions.Hybernator (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few questions. Exactly which "present tense" do you find objectionable? And, exactly why a 1936 citation can't be used to define a 1936 entity? How do you propose to separate "geography" from "politics" in a geo-political entity? Which "quotation" do you find flimsy? Then a little clarification. The definition part wasn't written by a "misguided Indian nationalist". it was rather written by a non-Indian, who has been fighting against Indian/Pakistani nationalistic edits for long. And, one little clarification - not removing reliable information is not philanthropy. It is more like following Wikipedia principles. And, finally one little proposal - if you are so against the current copy, would you try and write a new piece of copy to define South Asia? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Weren't you just banned for 31 hours for exactly this -- blanking of referenced information? Please mention first what you find biased and why. Otherwise, if you continue blanking paragraphs, you'll be blocked for longer durations. --Ragib (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were just blocked indefinitely, I will keep an eye out to make sure they don't come back as an IP. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're right about the European Parliament citation. While it does seem unequivocally true that India is the dominant political power in the region, someone should add a source for the statement. (I found the following on google: [4] and [5] both of which say that India emerged as the dominant power in South Asia after the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war and the emergence of Bangladesh. The second source is more reliable IMO (at least the name is one I'm familiar with) but I'll let someone else figure that out. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I updated the Maldives from dark green to intermediate green. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Neither have I. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The copy on Maldives probably needs some improvement. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am always in favour of including Maldives in South Asia. It is in all respect situated in the heart of South Asia, politically, economically & strategically.Hossain Akhtar Chowdhury (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would like hear from Thegreyanomaly, as the Tibetan issue is being handled by him. So far looks okay to me. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I get your point. I somehow managed to overlook the "..or simply India" reference. So, I'm guessing apart from that, you have no other concerns regarding my edits. --Nosedown (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As above, there is ongoing issue with the entitlement of a section "The Subcontinent" when "Indian subcontinent" has been clearly demonstrated to be the most common term for the entity. Major English publications refer to it as such, although an equitable acknowledgement of other (but less) common names as referenced is important per neutrality policy and not challenged. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, for example, has a distinct entry for "Indian subcontinent" (and also references this in its "subcontinent" entry), and the Merriam-Webster Geographical Dictionary notes it under the entry "India". Nonetheless, to not note the common name is giving undue weight to less common notions, in violation of policy. Even from a practical perspective, (the Republic of) India comprises the great majority of the subcontinent's land and population. (Approaching this from the other end, it's curious that the current article text doesn't mention any equation of 'Indian subcontinent' with 'India', which is fairly common.) This is also little different from referring to the "Arabian Peninsula" in Western Asia or similar as merely "the Peninsula" or the British Isles as something different even though there is no term that is more common at present (and I am mindful of the issues there). It is also important to point out that, per the article history, "Indian subcontinent" was a distinct article up until 4 months ago, for which there does not appear to have been a clear consensus for a merge with this article. So, until it is demonstrated why we need to mollify others with a less common term without consensus, I see little reason to. Bosonic dressing (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(inserted) Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and hence it is not a necessity to incorporate all the dictionary entries on a certain subject as stand-alone articles. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is an encyclopedia, and you have yet to dissuade that 'Indian subcontinent' cannot or should not be dealt with discretely in an encyclopedic manner, as various other compendiums do. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'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)[reply]

Much of this is largely opinion. You note a consensus 'seems to have been reached' regarding use of the simplistic term as a subtitle -- where is this? It is definitely not supported in common and scholarly literature (references and counts above). Discussion on the talk page more favours the longer subtitle: two commentators support, you opposed. If you are interpreting 'Indian subcontinent' as somehow being partial, that is not our problem: the longer subtitle is already arguably equitable given the prominence of India (physiographically, demographically, historically) on the subcontinent. (An aside, it may be important to note, per your user page, that you have self-identified as being of Punjabi ancestry and, thus, may have a stake in pushing a certain viewpoint regarding this issue.) As for this subsection in this article, which was created upon the merging of "Indian subcontinent" into this one four months ago, AFAICT, it would appear that a roughly equal number of editors supported and opposed this act -- that is not consensus. I will await response; however, if you or others cannot address the above commentary satisfactorily, please be advised that substantial corrections may be warranted. Bosonic dressing (talk)

Indian subcontinent is the accepted term for the region and I don't see why the 'Indian' should be dropped. The merger debate, as I recall it, left open the question of which term, South Asia or Indian Subcontinent, was more prevalent and the generally accepted view was that while South Asia (a term that has not been used historically) was increasing in use the term Indian subcontinent was historically more important and currently equally, if not more, in vogue. Please note that neutrality means that we focus on generally accepted views and does not mean that we modify these views so as not to give offense to one group or another. RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agreed, RP. However, the equation of 'South(ern) Asia' and 'Indian subcontinent', while they are synonymous to many, is not necessarily valid. In other words, the commonality of either term is not necessarily relevant since they generally deal with different, but coincident, regional concepts. Do we merge 'Middle East' into 'Southwest Asia', for example, because the two are largely coincident? No, I believe. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

K.K., why should we be minimalist, just to cater to what are apparently your sensitivities? I'm not advocating for 'Indian' to be put before everything, only where it rightfully belongs. As demonstrated above, 'Indian subcontinent' is the most common term, which per policy should be equitably noted, and you have done little to effectively dissuade that. Yes, specificity is required for those of us -- most of us -- who may not be from the Subcontinent. And, why should the subsection only explain why 'Subcontinent' is used, when it so plainly deals with the one on which India is the major portion of it and generally so named? Conversely, your deprecation of that, particularly after the 'merge' (see below) and with your nationality (which needn't be advertised) in mind, seems a conflation of relatively uncommon notions and calls to question motives for what can be construed as POV-pushing on this point. As such, I've made minor tweaks to the content, whilst losing nothing.

Moreover, the fact that this state has persisted for four months is little justification to perpetuate it: the former article persisted for quite a bit longer, was redirected -- not merged per se -- without clear consensus, and there have been numerous attempts to change content, with reversions now and then also without consensus (e.g., through discourse on the talk page). Up to this point, three commentators support the fuller subtitle; you oppose -- that is a preliminary consensus. Anyhow, if a distinct article is needed again, and it may be given issues herein, then an administrator is not required -- anyone can restore it. But, that wouldn't (nor shouldn't) change applicable renditions in this article and elsewhere. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The intent of the section should be to demonstrate and clarify what the 'subcontinent' -- which largely comprises India and is usually so named -- is in the context of the article. The fact that some authors equate the two is acknowledged and not in dispute, but the bias of content and your persistence regardless is. Your attempts to deprecate that speak far louder than words, and the section apparently labelled to more satisfy your qualms than anything else. So, having acknowledged consensus, it is perhaps fortunate that you have conceded and are withdrawing from the discussion. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alarm regarding POV nonsense sentence[edit]

“

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not my POV. It's the POV of reputable sources. And, would make clear which part of that you don't agree to? Are you trying to tell that the British Raj contained only the integral parts of Republic of India? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've removed the word 'integral' which is too loaded anyway and rewritten the sentence to say that these erstwhile princely states joined the union of India (which, IMO, is more accurate anyway).--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The way I see it, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir joined the Union of India (the maharaja, as the ruler, made the choice). That is in accordance with the facts and is definitely not the same as saying that Jammu and Kashmir is an indisputable part of India. (My suggestion is that you attempt to get consensus for you views before removing the reference to the princely state of jammu and kashmir.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence has been rephrased, and it needed no removal of Jammu and Kashmir. Check. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Not to be nit-picky but your rephrasing has changed the meaning a bit. The 'it' in 'It also encompasses' referred to South Asia but now refers to the Raj! I have a question: Did any of these princely states end up in Pakistan? The article seems to say that all 562 ended up in India? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(xec)I don't think it is 'my POV'. That's what happened as far as I know. Of course, I don't dispute that Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory but the Maharaja of Kashmir did decide to join the Union of India. However, that's neither here nor there. Since it is the definition of South Asia that is being talked about rather than a definition of the Raj, my suggestion is that the entire sentence be rephrased as follows: It also encompasses the 562 protected princely states, that joined the Union of India, but were not directly ruled by the Raj,[5] including Hyderabad State, Kingdom of Mysore, Baroda, Gwalior and the State of Jammu and Kashmir (which is currently a disputed territory and divided between India, Pakistan, and China).[6] The current formulation does not work because it implies that the parts of Jammu and Kashmir not in India are not in South Asia. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, did any princely state join Pakistan? The only reason I can think of to include the 'join the Union of India' is to distinguish between the princely states that were in the 'India' part of the Raj as opposed to the 'Burma' part that were also, till 1937 anyway, a part of the British India. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Excellent addition. I bow my head in respect. Now for the small hitch around the Maldives... is it core South Asia or is it not? Is there any supporting evidence for whichever way it's decided? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also, you are in violation of the WP:3RR. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 00:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removed. If there is an official language, please provide a reliable source. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it means anything some simple google searches lead me to notice that their constitution is written in English. I don't know if that means anything. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably means that your search was in English. Yes? --Gimme danger (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

south asian country language map has lot of errors. Pondicherry states language is Tamil, but it written in Malayalam and provincial language of Northern Province, sri lankan is tamil but it doesn't shown in the map. please correct it. --Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]