Talk:Indo-Greek Kingdom

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Indo-Greek Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210080315/http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Foreign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm to http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Foreign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220090138/http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Plutarch0206/Morals/0062-05_Bk.pdf to http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Plutarch0206/Morals/0062-05_Bk.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210080315/http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Foreign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm to http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Foreign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indo-Greek Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050307083704/http://www.chinatoday.com.cn/English/e20026/sunzi1.htm to http://www.chinatoday.com.cn/English/e20026/sunzi1.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.chinatoday.com.cn/English/e20026/images/t20026/p581.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610192252/http://www.gengo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~hkum/bactrian.html to http://www.gengo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~hkum/bactrian.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indo-Greek Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306233802/http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac58bak.html to http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac58bak.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015203904/http://iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp8/ot_indoscyth_20050802.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp8/ot_indoscyth_20050802.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Afghanistan being part of the Indian subcontinent
It was discussed throughly in the Indian subcontinent talk page. Afghanistan is not part of the Indian subcontinent. Please read the thread here. (2600:1001:B02B:F056:4848:27BB:5121:5256 (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC))
 * , can you please help? This user keeps adding Afghanistan as being part of the Indian subcontinent. Even thought the talk page on the Talk:Indian subcontinent is very detailed and clear with reference what Indian subcontinent is. (2600:1001:B02B:F056:4848:27BB:5121:5256 (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC))


 * The part you are edit-warring to remove also includes . This is not Afghanistan, and both of these belong to the Indian subcontinent. These facts are supported by WP:RS. Dr.   K.  03:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Pakistan and India is, but that sentence states . Large section of the Kingdom was based in Afghanistan, which you cut off on your above statement. Also, I have pointed out, citation is clearly needed for any direct rule over present day India. South Asia is most appropriate, as their kingdom is mainly Afghanistan and Pakistan. Their rule of Indian subcontinent is as significant as Afghanistan. (2600:1001:B02B:F056:4848:27BB:5121:5256 (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC))
 * The part about Afghanistan can be rephrased to clarify the point about that country not belonging to the Indian subcontinent. The rest of the sentence doesn't say anything about modern-day India. It just refers to the Indian subcontinent, which is supported by RS. I don't see why this part needs to be suppressed. Dr.   K.  03:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which exact part is suppressed? Only change is Indian subcontinent being replaced with more appropriate geography South Asia. I have not removed anything. Instead, I noted a citation is needed for their rule of present day India. (2600:1001:B02B:F056:4848:27BB:5121:5256 (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC))
 * "Indian subcontinent" is being suppressed. The sentence makes no claim about "present day India" so your comment inside the "citation needed" tag about undisputed evidence for "present day India" is unnecessary. Dr.   K.  03:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indian subcontinent for this article is not being suppressed as South Asia simply covers Afghanistan and Pakistan (and India; if a proper source is found). Also, a citation is needed, you can remove it once you have a proper citation regarding present day India being directly ruled by their kingdom. (2600:1001:B02B:F056:4848:27BB:5121:5256 (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC))
 * It has become clear that you don't like the term "Indian subcontinent" because you associate it with "present day India", although no mention of "present day India" exists. Your rapid edit-warring to support your POV is also indicative that you will not take no for an answwer. This POV cannot stand. Unlike you, I will not edit-war to revert your POV. Instead I will wait for other editors to chime in. Dr.   K.  04:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you agree this part should have a reference? As there is no clear evidence of direct rule. . Only asking a citation for this claim. (2600:1001:B02B:F056:4848:27BB:5121:5256 (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC))
 * If there is no clear evidence, this can be qualified, but there is no reason not to mention it at all, as there is also no reason to suppress the term "Indian subcontinent". Dr.   K.  04:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is a reliable source: They are referred to as 'Indo-Greeks' and there were about forty such kings and rulers who controlled large areas of northwestern India and Afghanistan. Their history .... There are more. Dr.   K.  04:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is another reliable source: There were later Indo-Greek kingdoms in northwest India. .... Dr.   K.  04:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Three phases must be distinguished, (a) The Greek rulers of Bactria (the Oxus region) expand their power to the south, conquer Afghanistan and considerable parts of north-western India, and establish an Indo-Greek kingdom in the Panjab where they rule as 'kings of India';. Dr.   K.  04:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The invasion of India by a Greco-Bactrian army in ... led to the creation of an Indo-Greek kingdom in northwestern India (present-day India and Pakistan).. Dr.   K.  04:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – On the specific question of whether Afghanistan can be included in the "Indian subcontinent", it is clear that most reliable sources do not agree. South Asia is certainly a less controversial term in this context. But the dispute above seems to be broader, which I cannot get into right now for lack of time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have separated Afghanistan from the Indian subcontinent, and added multiple reliable sources agreeing that NW India and Pakistan were part of the kingdoms. I am not seeing what is in dispute. Dr.   K.  05:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur with Kautilya3. This is not the article to have "shadow edit war over South Asia or Indian subcontinent or any modern era geopolitical terms". Our focus ought to be to explain the subject... Indo-Greek kingdoms. This included, at various times, parts of what are now Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Per WP:RS. A simple, clear statement suffices. We should always keep the reader in mind. As William Zinsser wrote in his On Writing Well, "clutter is the disease of writing" and "the secret of good writing is to strip every sentence to its cleanest components"; remove every word that serves no purpose. So, as you two collaborate, please consider if you can altogether avoid confusing, controversial terms and use simple, easier to understand terms instead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Undue imphasis on Indian subcontinent, as Afghanistan was a large part of their kingdom(s). South Asia is most approprte for this article; it covers Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan. Plus, avoids clutter. (70.192.82.201 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC))


 * You are now edit-warring using socks without waiting for talkpage WP:CONSENSUS. You have replaced "Indian Subcontinent" with "South Asia" in an indiscriminate fashion; for example, you converted "north-western Indian subcontinent" to "northwestern South Asia" which is clear POV and an unnatural expression which suppresses the original text. Also a section title was changed to refer to "South Asia", instead of "Indian subcontinent" while the section talks about the Indian subcontinent. These have to be fixed. Dr.   K.  20:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sistan
Should Sistan be mentioned in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)