Talk:South Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reverts by User Nikhilmn2002[edit]

Nikhilmn2002 (talk · contribs) has been reverting the addition of Hindustan, Indosphere and other things to the article. Also South Asia and Bharat Khanda is not the same as Greater India. They are different concepts. Greater India is also about regions outside of South Asia/Bharat Khanda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.7.184.132 (talkcontribs)

I reverted them because it has nothing to do with South Asia because this page is not just about India, now if others like having these info then I won't say anything. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course, it has to do with South Asia: "Bharata Khanda ....is a term .... to describe the geographic region that encompassed the modern countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar—that is, South Asia at the term's furthest extent." How can it be anymore clear? Indosphere and the others I added are also relevant for the See also section and you have not explained why they should not be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.7.184.132 (talkcontribs)
South Asia#Definitions would be the right place for your edits. Lorstaking (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with having the content in the Definition section. Thanks. Also User:Nikhilmn2002 gave no policy-based reason for his (often unexplained) reverts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.7.184.132 (talkcontribs)
I'm removing your addition while this discussion is pending. IMO, the material you're adding is not suitable for a geographical article of this sort since it deals with mythology. Perhaps if there were an article on Mythology in South Asia, that would be ok. The point, of course, is that Bharat Khanda is mentioned in mythological texts but the extent to which those mythological regions corresponded to, or were considered to be equivalent to, what we call South Asia today is dubious. Also, mythological texts, by definition, are not talking about real things. --regentspark (comment) 15:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
+1 to RegentsPark. Doesn't belong in this article. Undue WP:Soap. Further, terms such as Hindustan, Indosphere do not appear in their mythological texts either. Everything south of Mount Meru is Bharatavarsha, and Mount Meru is the North Pole... in at least some versions of the Buddhist, Hindu and Jain mythologies! In other words, the whole earth is Bharatavarsha! IP: welcome to wikipedia, but please reconsider, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This is getting out of control[edit]

Afghanistan is considered Central Asia by many sources. Rather than trying to completely remove Afghanistan from the list in south asia, why don't you include the fact that Afghanistan is sometimes excluded as it is considered part of Central Asia? Or why not include Iran in South Asia, as per the United Nations definition of South Asia? https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/ @LouisAragon: Hayras123 (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that has gone completely "out of control", is your persistent editorial "mission" to disrupt articles related to Afghanistan, by violating (in no particular order) WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:WAR, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and WP:OR. Consider this your final warning. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Afghanistan is part of CAREC and other sources clearly mention Afghanistan as part of Central Asia. Hayras123 (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: You seem to be on a mission to revert every single one of my edits. @RegentsPark: Don't revert content purely for the purpose of not liking it. Some sources state Afghanistan as Central Asia, and the article should clearly mention that and Afghanistan is part of CAREC. Hayras123 (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hayras123, I don't dislike your edit. Rather, I think it is unnecessary in the lead. Since Afghanistan is a part of a regional group called South Asia, it follows that it is a part of South Asia. Historical and other caveats are clearly explained in the Definitions section, where these caveats are more appropriate. The lead should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies and violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. Your inclusion of "other definitions" is not an important point (see membership in SAARC) and, by focusing on these other definitions, you're giving undue attention to something that is clearly out of line with the modern and accepted definition. --regentspark (comment) 15:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
SAARC membership is symbolic and is only an economic cooperation. If being classified into a region would need the membership of a certain economic cooperation group, why not include Afghanistan's membership in CAREC as proof of being in Central Asia? Quite frankly, many other sources claim Afghanistan as part of Central Asia, and the article should mention that. Hayras123 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, if properly sourced. But not in the lead. An entity can belong to more than one grouping so inclusion in CAREC doesn't automatically mean that it can't be in South Asia as well. Since this article is about South Asia, any explanation of how a country is also in some other group is best relegated, if it is necessary and if there is consensus to include it, to the body. Definitely not in the lead. --regentspark (comment) 02:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hayras123, seems you don't learn anything from the warning messages on your talk page. Did you forget this?[1] Every time I revert your edits, I clarify them in my edit summaries. For example, you're involved in an edit warring on this article. Instead of looking for a solution on talk page, you just restored your edits. That's the reason why I have reverted your edit. Same for the other articles. My edits are clear enough. Focus on your own edits and behavior rather than talking about me and throwing personal attacks. Plus talk about this article not our previous encounters. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not involved in edit warring on this article. I have frequently used the talk pages of articles, but alas it is frequently ignored. Hayras123 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Hayras123: Sir, if anything is out of control here it would be you. You have been comletely out of control in your repeated WP:EDITWARs and WP:PERSONAL attacks. Sorry to break you the bad news - if you continue like this ignoring all the warnings you recieved, your will get only one outcome - a WP:BLOCK. I propose, sir, that you explain your edit here, on the talk page. Then listen to what others say about your argument. If they have better arguments, agree to them. If you feel that your argument is better, and no one is listening, then get more people involved. If more people disagree with you, then admit that you have been wrong. There is no shame in correcting our errors. Aditya(talkcontribs) 17:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Ma'am/Sir, if anything is truly out of control it is the frequent disruption of pages regarding Afghanistan by the other editors on this site. As an Afghan, I know of the extreme bias editors on this site have, due to the ethnicities and opinions of the other editors on this site. I have already explained my edit on this talk page, but if you need some help finding it, I will mention it again.
Afghanistan is a part of Central Asia as regarded by many sources that I have listed in my edits and Afghanistan is also part of CAREC, the Central Asian equivalent of SAARC. Hayras123 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, Ma'am/Sir (whichever you identify), don't say I need more people involved and to agree with me. Knowledge is not based on how many people you can get to agree with you. If Wikipedia is based on biased, unsourced content, then, by all means, go ahead. I am here to ensure a neutral, and a high quality online encyclopedia that is not biased. If you are offended by facts and the prospect that your biased articles may be challenged, then it is a problem the editors must deal with, not by dealing with the frustration by warning me of a block or a ban. Hayras123 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Please, sir, see that no one is contesting that Afghanistan belongs to CAREC, or that Afghanistan also belongs to Central Asia. What is being contested is where to include that information (in the lead? in the body?). Can you, sir, keep the discussion rational (without random accusations) and address the problem of where to include the information? That way you have a better chance of getting a a favourable outcome. Random accusations like "you are biased" and "you are anti-Afghan" will not help you.
As for getting others involved is an absolute requirement of Wikipedia. It is our most important policy, the policy of WP:CONSENSUS. If, sir, you feel your superior knowledge puts you above and beyond the millions of people who wrote billons of articles here, then may be you need to find another website to write. How about Facebook? There, in Facebook, you don't need consensus. Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Aditya Kabir/Hayras123: You both are going off-tangent and forum-y. There are no "billons [sic] articles here". Please see WP:TALK guidelines. Hayras123: first of all, no persistent edit warring please. As RegentsPark explained above, the lead summarizes the main points of the article. South Asia includes Afghanistan in many RS. It needs to be in the lead. But you are right that there are RS which question whether Afghanistan should be counted as a Central Asian country or Southwest Asian country or South Asian country... for good reasons. This is already discussed in the later paragraphs of the Definitions section of the main article with sources (also see old discussions on this talk page). The question now is whether it should be in the lead as well. I think not, because as RegentsPark explains above, it is undue. If you can find and present on this talk page many scholarly sources that state Afghanistan is a Central Asian country (or whatever), we can consider a refn note in the lead per NPOV guidelines. A refn note may be more appropriate for clarification, because as explained above, an entity can belong to more than one grouping. This is a geo-political grouping and a subjective classification, not an either-or thing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

True. Reducted. Thanks. Aditya(talkcontribs) 04:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Funny, I thought it was people like RegentsPark and Wario-Man constantly reverting my edits and contesting the very need to include Afghanistan as a part of Central Asia.

What I propose is to put it in the lead, or to put this fact wherever it mentions Afghanistan as South Asia to make sure the readers know that there is a debate as to whether Afghanistan is classified as Central or South Asia. Hayras123 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no debate except in your mind. Afghanistan is a part of SAARC therefore it is a part of South Asia. It may also be a part of other groups, that doesn't mean that people go around muttering to themselves "it's in South Asia. No, it's in Central Asia. No, it's in the Middle East" or organizing symposia on "Afghanistan: A South Asian, Middle Eastern, or Central Asian Country". You're making too big a deal of this. --regentspark (comment) 01:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Afghanistan is a part of CAREC therefore a part of Central Asia. It may also be a part of other groups, but that doesn't mean that people go around muttering to themselves "it's in Central Asia. No, it's South Asia. No, it's in the Middle East" or organizing symposia on "Afghanistan: A South Asian, Middle Eastern, or Central Asian Country". In actuality, you are making a big deal about this.
Jokes aside, if participation in an economic block means it's a part of the region or not, why are countries like Bulgaria, Switzerand etc part of Europe? This logic here is pathetic. Many sources include Afghanistan as Central Asia, no doubt, and the article should mention that. Also, Afghanistan is part of the Central Asian economic bloc, so that further puts your logic into question.
Afghanistan's foreign affairs website clearly states Afghanistan is not a part of South Asia. [2]

Afghanistan is determined not only to be a land-bridge between Central Asia, the Sub-Continent and the Middle East

Hayras123 (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hayras123, since Afghanistan has chosen to be a part of SAARC, you can hardly claim that the government treats itself as distinct from South Asia. If it made that choice because it wants to be a "bridge" it doesn't necessarily follow that its membership as a part of South Asia is debatable. All it means is that it is in both political entities. I agree with you that there must be some mention of Afghanistan as being a different sort of component of South Asia (as opposed to, say India or Nepal) in the article, but the correct place for that is the Definitions section, not the lead, because this article is about the group of countries that claim membership of South Asia, not about Afghanistan. Note also that South Asia, unlike Europe, is an expedient definition (i.e., its boundaries are not explicitly defined in geographic terms), so a comparison with the membership of Bulgaria or Switzerland in Europe is meaningless (or, if I may borrow your preferred mode of expression, the logical leap is pathetic). Regardless of what you or I think, your views are clearly not the consensus views on this page and I suggest you leave this alone. Otherwise, your approach to this issue is becoming tendentious. --regentspark (comment) 15:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Hayras123: Yes, you are right, sir. It is a part of Central Asia, it is also a part of South Asia. Mention both in their respective articles. But, in the articles about South Asia and Central Asia, the inclusion of Afghanistan in multiple regions is too trivial a matter to be in the lead. The only article, sir, that may have this in the lead is the article on Afghanistan. (BTW, can you please format your comments a bit more coherently, and according to the Wikipedia convention? the way you do it makes you comments slightly unreadable) Aditya(talkcontribs) 05:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Second Anglo-Afghan War[edit]

Afghanistan didnt lost second Anglo Afghan war. It was more complex. Please fix that or provide sources. here are some sources http://www.garenewing.co.uk/angloafghanwar/sitestuff/faq.php#Anchor-Who-11481 https://www.thoughtco.com/britains-second-war-in-afghanistan-1773763 -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.199.161 (talkcontribs) http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/anglo-afghan-wars#pt2 https://otik.uk.zcu.cz/bitstream/11025/15528/1/Karnik.pdf


Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Eastern South Asia be merged into South Asia. Content of eastern south asian can be added into south asian. Once merger is complete, eastern south asia can be delete as it is redundant page. thanks. If there is no objection, I will add tags for merger. --Spasage (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding Chittagong to list in the infobox[edit]

Chittagong is one of the major and largest cities in South Asia and the second largest in Bangladesh. Adding it to the list in infobox. Please discuss it here before removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.127.246.106 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It's been agreed that cities with over 10 million are only to be on the list otherwise far too many cities would be added that exceeds Chittagong's own population. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)