Talk:South Asia

Proposal Merge South Asia and Indian Subcontinent

South Asia is the more popular and geographically aswell as historically and politcally the correct term for this area Indian subcontinent is defunct, I see no reason for having two pages clearly talking about the same area given South Asia is more acceptable to the other countries of south asia and this article has more information than the other one mentioned S Seagal (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

But South Asia includes far more than just the Indian subcontinent. Many people use the term to include every Asian country that is West of East Asia/southeast Asia. Saturdayseven (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ignore Saturdayseven, what they are saying is completely unsourced nonsense. If you look through the archived talk pages, I believe it was decided long ago that Indian Subcontinent would be more geological. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Retitling Definition by South Asian Studies programs

An ip user has decided they want to retitle this section to "Definition by tertiary studies programs". There is not support or accuracy for using this title. I thought this would be worthy to mention on the talk page. Does anyone support this edit? (Also, please note all the references cited in this section described as South Asian studies programs.) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The intent of this change was to better/neutrally fit the subtitle with the section content, since all of the South Asian studies and departments noted are with universities, or post-secondary (tertiary) institutions. Indology is, after all, the academic study of cultures and such of India and vicinity. The fact that these studies are also referred to as Indic or Indian studies also justifies the change, or a similar one ('Definitions by academic study programs') You also labelled it a vandal effort, ignorantly, without probing and reverting blindly. 76.67.18.192 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

All the program cited though are specifically South Asian Studies programs, thus saying "South Asian Studies programs" is more correct. The purpose of the segment is to depict multiple definitions of South Asia. None of the cited sources are referring themselves as Indian Studies, they all call themselves South Asian Studies. Removing that specificity is not beneficial. The "see also" only says Indology because South Asian Studies redirects there. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerning this edit (Indian Subcontinent)

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=South_Asia&action=historysubmit&diff=425245800&oldid=425222582

Should the Indian Subcontinent comments be removed or should they remain? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course the assertion should be removed, or in the least refactored: the statement that "Due to similar scope, 'South Asia' is also referred to as the 'Indian subcontinent'" is rather unequivocal, bold, and inaccurate, particularly given the McLeod citation (used to buttress this) that indicates that there is equivalency of three terms -- South Asia, Indian subcontinent, and India -- in the book alone ("it") for largely historical contexts. And, just prior to this assertion, McLeod indicates the subcontinent "may cover the same seven countries [India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and Maldives]" or exclude the last two. And, with Iran included, there is no equivalency in terms. In addition, its prior inclusion and bolding was bad form, given the mention/linking of the term earlier in the lead. Nonetheless, this point is adequately and equitably dealt with in the 'Indian subcontinent' subsection of the article (emphasis added): "Due to similar scope, the terms "South Asia" and "Indian subcontinent" are used by some academics interchangeably." 76.67.18.192 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey random IP shut the hell up and make an account. Until you do, I don't think anybody here cares of your opnion. The Subcontinent is actually East Iran to the most Eastern extents of India. See Greater India. The Subcontinent is part of South Asia but does not cover the same extent. The terms should remain since the subcontinents reaches touch all of South Asia yet they do not cover all of South Asia. Plus, there is no real point in renaming a section of the article especially since it covers the same points and has the same definition. --Schmeater (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, despite your registration, I don't think anyone here cares for your opinion. So, why don't you STFU? In any event, your blathering demonstrates that the point of contention should not be included in the lead as is, since the terms are not equal. That's like saying "Due to similar scope, the Arabian Peninsula is also referred to as Saudi Arabia." It also disagrees with assertions in the lower section, as pointed out. 76.67.18.192 (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey... Just because one person violates WP:CIVIL does not give you license to do the same Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Granted - I could've taken the higher road, but tit for tat is not inappropriate.

Actually no it is not, there is no exception in Wikipedia policies that says if someone attacks you that you are allowed to attack back. If either of you continue these violations, I will have no problem referring both of you to an admin. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can sit back and take it, but I choose not to. But, perhaps I will ignore such bluster hereafter. Now, back to the matter at hand... 76.67.18.192 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

76.67.18.192 (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Schmeater, please abide by WP:CIVIL. While I agree registering an account is a good idea for anyone who wants to become a serious editor, this is not appropriate. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, with the civility dispute out of the way, I hope my two cents would be helpful. Since MacLeod was not acceptable enough as a source, I have put a few more. If that falls short of expectation again, please let me know. There indeed is a custom here that discourages over-citation. But, sometimes that might become inevitable, especially when minor details start prevailing over the general picture. WP:BRAIN is a wonderful essay to understand the situation, I'd say. No attack indented. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have moved these references down to the appropriate spot, per above. Listing them ad nauseum is making an improper point that the article already notes and places undue weight on it; it seems that overcitation misses the point overall. I don't challenge the McLeod reference as such: I challenge the interpretation assigned to it etc. by said editors and the undue interpretation that South Asia and the Indian subcontinent are unequivocally the same all the time, which the prior assertion plainly made inequitably. The 'brain' essay is just that. 76.67.18.192 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)