Talk:South Asia/Archive 5

Iran and LouisAragon
LouisAragon has found a purpose of editing this article. He just doesn't like the fact that the United Nations geoscheme includes Iran as a part of South Asia. He has tried to make that piece of information as invisible as possible in the past. Splitting the definition section and shifting the Iran part lower down the article and reducing the regional country grouping section and shifting it lower down.

Since the policies, the sources and consensus restrained him from doing that (he was also nice enough to comply after a long and bitter argument). Now he has come back with a different strategy. He wants to remove as many mention of the geoscheme as possible. The rest he is explaining away with help from as much original research as possible.


 * The geoscheme information began with: "The United Nations heavily deviates in its definition of South Asia." He has added: "It's the only institution in the world that adds Iran."
 * Then he went on to add: "By the most deviating definition of the region based on completely different reasons by certain departments of the UN, Iran is added as well. However, the definition was solely created for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories." Later he removed Iran and added "sometimes" before Tibet.
 * The article said: " China, Iran and Myanmar has also applied for the status of full members of SAARC." To that he added: "while Russia and Turkey have applied for observer status", trying to equate observer status with membership, and implying that those countries are somewhat part of South Asia (that would surely cushion the pain of Iran's inclusion into South Asia).
 * Then he removed the geoscheme boundary from the boundary section because he thinks - Not needs to further explain hugely deviating "situations" (in this case geographical boundary. This is what he removed - "Per the UN's definition the wider subregion's northern frontier is the Himalayas and southerly post-Soviet states of Central Asia (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, bordering northern Afghanistan and Iran), its western boundary is the westerly border of Iran (with Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, and Iraq), and its eastern boundary is the westerly border of Burma (with India and Bangladesh)."
 * And then, in the geography section, then he replaced the vegetation map with a climate map (which would be a better fit in the climate section) stating - Changed map with a map actually related to the commonly used definitions of South Asia.
 * The article wrote: "The current territories of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan (the core of the British Empire prior to 1947) form the core countries of South Asia, while the mountain countries of Nepal and Bhutan, and island countries of Sri Lanka and Maldives are generally included. Afghanistan and Myanmar are often added, and by various definitions, the British Indian Ocean Territory, Mauritius, Iran and the Tibet Autonomous Region are included as well." To this he added: "and by various deviating definitions based on often substantially different reasons."

In his pain for Iran he has forgotten that WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV are core policies, and you can't ignore them even if you don't agree with the United States or scholarly sources. I am removing all that WP:POVPUSH from the article. If LouisAragon disagrees he can seek to build a WP:CON for his version per WP:BRD. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You really have not much to do, do you, finding all these weird complot theories? But sure, find us another independent institution/organisation in the world that adds Iran. We'll wait. Also find me any quote where I state that I don't want Iran added, as you state as if you can read peoples mind (hilarious). Iran is part of South Asia as of several of the UN definitions, and that's a fact. However, it also doesn't "change" the fact that it's the only institution in the world that does so. Iran was still part the intro, and definition. I don't see anything wrong with the version it was before your change. When as of an example, 99 definitions add 7 countries, but the final last one adds 8, then that final last definition is a "heavily deviating one", whether you like it or not. And "especially", when they base their definition on something totally different too. Also, I added Russia and Turkey as that's the two nations that applied for observer status as of recently. Has nothing to do with the nation Iran, or do you want to state that also ain't true? From the very first line you wrote, one could reek the heavy stench of WP:JDL. WP:JDL, and nothing else.
 * The last version didn't state "anything" that wasn't true, and you know it. Now, sir complot theory, prove us otherwise. LouisAragon (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything redeemable has been salvaged from the restoration, including the rationale for UN geoscheme (the word "heavily" is replaced with a more formal word "significantly"). By the way, who is "we" in "we'll wait" and who is "us" in "prove us otherwise"? If you mean the Wikipedia community then know two things – (1) I am a part of that "we"/"us" as much as you are; and (2) the larger community likes to uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not personal opinions.
 * Now for the errors in the reasoning above:
 * I get this "complot theory" Talk:Daria-i-Noor and here, where I witnessed the same single purpose editing of an article. You pushed the POV of "Iran has a Daria-i-Noor, there can't be second stone that belongs to a second owner" way longer than reason may dictate.
 * Why should I find "another independent institution/organisation" that adds Iran? Please, note that – (1) Iran itself wanted to join SAARC; and (2) another organization's definition is not needed to validate the fact that the UN has a geoscheme.
 * For "it's the only institution in the world that does so", see the point above. Besides, I believe the UN is not "just another" organization. It's an authority and a highly mainstream authority at that.
 * "I don't see anything wrong" looks like a refusal to get the point. (inserted) Remember, you removed the very word geoscheme 5 times from the article. Is the right? Is that wrong?
 * For "that final last definition is a..." see above. It's just formalized.
 * No. I don't want say it's not true. I want say that it's irrelevant.
 * Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.
 * You must respect WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. And, you are most welcome to seek opinions of uninvolved editors. Aditya (talk • contribs) 06:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. My analysis: --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) "Only institution". That's a big claim and needs an explicit citation that states that no other institution includes Iran in SA.
 * 2) 'only for statistical convenience'. Unnecessary. We don't state the purposes behind other definitions and I'm not sure why this particular definition needs a caveat.
 * 3) 'most deviating'. That's OR unless a citation is provided.
 * 4) 'China, Iran, Myanmar'. Has China really done this? If the citation supports the statement then it's probably ok. As is the observer status comment following.
 * 5) 'geoscheme boundary stuff'. If supported by the citation, it should stay. We don't question our sources.
 * 6) 'map'. I think the original south asia vegetation map is clearer. The new climate map doesn't make the boundaries (regardless of the fact that they are loose ones) clear.
 * 7)  'the caveat on definitions'. No. That's OR. Unless there is a citation that talks about how deviating the various definitions are. We can't analyze deviations.


 * User:Aditya Kabir, off-topic, it's funny how you mention the Daria-i-Noor article, considering someone else had to fix it for you because you were constantly coming with completely rubbish souces. (one by an IT expert who wanted to talk about diamonds, and the other one a Bangladeshi funded Wiki). So yeah, if I were to be you, I'd rather stay quiet about that.
 * - If any person disagrees that Iran is added to South Asia by only one institution in the world, then it's that person who has to prove otherwise here. If you can't find one, but still want to remove it, you're going in against Wiki policy.
 * - I'd like you to refute the statement that Iran is only added to South Asia by the United Nations (wich you removed). If you can't, you're once again proving your WP:JDL.
 * - If something is not true, it's also not verifiable. You can't find another independant institution or organisation that adds Iran. (if you can, please show us, and I will definetely admit that I'm wrong) You just can't therefore, the statement that Iran is only added to South Asia by the UN (as organisation) is not incorrect/non-verifiable. The UN adds Iran to South Asia according certain deparments, and that's verifiable.
 * - Yeah, logically people add images that represent the commonly used definitions of something. Somewhat difficult to grasp?
 * - No one ever said the UN is just an organisation, still it's the only organisation.
 * - I fully respect WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. I'm merely portraying that what is verifiable and/or checkable. Nothing non-factual or non-checkable I added about this version Kabir as of recently reverted [].
 * - The worldwide commonly used definition of South Asia does not include Iran, however, certain deparments of the definetely UN do. But they are the only one. Even that map in the start of the definitions shows that. (Also added by the UN) All other nations/regions (Tibet, Afghanistan etc) are added by more than one organisation to South Asia, apart from the UN. I know I'm argueing with an user who fall under the WP:JDL, and most definetely hails from South Asia, but the truth is the truth, and it's verifiable. Aditya Kabir removed almost everything without even debunking ONE of the statements he calls PoV, wich, once again shows how biased he is. He likes to spam many WP's, but he can't even debunk one of my statements, and therefore resorts to creating all kinds of weird complot theories. Ah well, people with not much to do often resort to such things. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? I remember you trying to prove you vague point using self published sources like Tripod.com, wikis (like the Israeli source), sources that mirror Wikipedia or quote Wikipedia as the source (like the Emporia source and Embee source), or sources that doesn't discuss it at all like Wilfrid Laurier University. And, I also remember Kmzayeem i using History of Koh-i-Noor, Darya-i-Noor, and Taimur's Ruby, The Leisure Hour and Falang, Banglapedia, The Tribune, The Darya-E-Noor Is in the Sonali Bank Vault, Indian Express] and Gemmologia. Which one of them is a Bangladeshi Wiki? Is there any Bangladeshi Wiki anywhere on earth? You don't seem very truthful. Do you? May be your respect for WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV is as true as you claim of a Bangladeshi wiki.
 * Your rant about the only organization is very difficult to understand. Though 80% of your reply is about an only source, I didn't understand much. For instance UN is NOT the only source. The government of Iran becomes the second source when it applies to join South Asian regional council as a full member (see: here and here). There may be other sources. But, if YOU claim that there is no other source, then YOU have to prove that there is no other source, not me (see: WP:PROVEIT). And, what about you commentary on how the geoscheme is heavily deviating and how it is about statistics only - how does that fit in here? Assert fact, not your opinions. Finally, even if it was the only source, you still don't have a right to put your commentary in the article.
 * Anyways, you have seen regentspark's comment. Do you need other editors to comment? May be you can find someone who can see some value in your opinionated original research. Until then the consensus is against the edits I fixed. Regards. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, from my own experience with LouisAragon, I guess he's not competent enough with the policies as I have stated earlier. I would agree to the points made by RegentsPark. I think Aditya has shown enough resilience to cooperate with LouisAragon, if problems persists, I would recommend to report it in WP:ANI.-- Zayeem  (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My last comment. Sorry, but someone who is a neutral editor without any agenda doesn't write this: LouisAragon has found a purpose of editing this article. He just doesn't like the fact that the United Nations geoscheme includes Iran as a part of South Asia. He has tried to make that piece of information as invisible as possible in the past. Splitting the definition section and shifting the Iran part lower down the article and reducing the regional country grouping section and shifting it lower down.; It's your subjective opinion, but you try to portray it as a fact, wich shows again how incredibly biased you are, and what kind of agenda you have (here). I have no agenda, and I acknowledge the truth, and the independant sources. (wich are closely linked, but not the same thing)


 * Going further on the off-topic discussion you started, it's quite funny how you’re actually throwing the fact that it was actually you who gave all those sources (minus the Italian one, and the Taimur's ruby one), on the user Kmzayeem. It was actually you who gave most of those crappy sources. Kmzayeem gave the only trustworthy one (the gemmologia book about gems, the Italian one). And btw, actually, I was the first one to use this source in our argument, neither you or him. ([]) History of Koh-i-Noor, Darya-i-Noor, and Taimur's Ruby,
 * (An Indian news paper, given by you) The Leisure Hour
 * (didn’t mention a thing about a Darya-i-noor located currently in South Asia, given by you ) Falang,
 * (‘’Banglapedia, the national encyclopedia of Bangladesh’’. Banglapedia - the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, an intellectual output of over 1450 scholars, is so far the most comprehensive reference work on Bangladesh from high ancient period to date.‘’Written and created by Bangladeshi and other South Asian writers, given by you, veeery trustworthy, and I hope you realise an online encyclopedia is a Wiki?)Banglapedia
 * (an Indian newspaper, given by you) The Tribune,
 * (A book written by some South Asian IT specialist, talking in a story kind-of-way about the diamond, given by you)The Darya-E-Noor Is in the Sonali Bank Vault,
 * (Another Indian newspaper, given by you)Indian Express]
 * (Finally an independant trusthworthy source about gems, given by Kmzayeem, who fixed the matter)Gemmologia
 * Magically and interestingly, all sources you gave seemed to be coming from regional newspapers and an IT specialist talking about gems in his spare time. Portraying it factual, independantly, and trustworthy, yeah right. WP:NEWSORG and WP:RS at it's best. Kmzayeem had to fix it eventually for you. You couldn't do it yourself.


 * Anyway, I’m not further going to waste my time with some user synonymous with WP:JDL who utterly fails to do that what he so desperately tries to be that what he isn't; namely being a user who actually uses neutral, independant, and reliable sources, and who doesn't (seem to) lie about who used wich, or what sources, in order to favour his own portrayal of the story in another topic. Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I will never understand this kind of reasoning - (1) a UN regional grouping is only a deviation; or (2) all South Asian sources are crap; or (3) all online encyclopedias are wikis. Lucky that Wikipedia endorses none of these strange perspectives. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A problem with definitions in US English
This whole article is not understood in UK English For us (I am British), the term South Asian conjures up countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, etc. The countries included in this category we Brits would think of as (pre-independance) India/North West Frontier.

I can't give you any intellectual references as to why this is; merely my personal experience. Many of my neighbours' families originate from this part of the world and wouldn't describe themselves as 'South Asian'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.36.83 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you cite some sources? Because British sources clearly describes the countries included as South Asia, and never countries like Thailand etc. Also There never was any mention of North West Frontier when describing the countries included. I come from South Asia, and I am perfectly willing put more significance to credible sources than my personal information/misinformation. Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that in the UK, "Asian" is typically understood to mean South Asian, just as in the US it is understood to mean East Asian, but that's due to immigration, where the Asian population originates. I've never heard of any confusion when "South Asian" or "East Asian" is spelled out.  According to the OED, as of 1993, South Asia is the area bounded by Burma, Iran, China, and Central Asia:  that is, Afghanistan and the Indian sub-continent.  The only other denotation they note is an isolated use for Australia from 1827.  Then there's SAARC, where South Asian countries use the term "South Asia" for self-designation.  — kwami (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is about the "Asians", not "South Asians". Anyways, the issue should be solved now. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The actual OED has no entry whatsoever on "South Asia". www.oxforddictionaries.com has one, but it's hardly as authoritative. — Llywelyn II   15:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not "US English", it's just "PC English". I'm an American and (as much as I understand the strict accuracy of the present definition) "South Asia" produces the exact same image in my mind as you're describing. "Southwest Asia" is the Middle East; what is being called "South Asia" here is just sui generis India... or, if we're trying to accommodate Burma and Pakistan, the Subcontinent. 'South Asia' by default is the grab-bag of the countries in Indochina, what we're calling "Southeast Asia". And for what it's worth, I feel that way despite being born well after the fairly recent birth of all of these terms, which won't be true for all of our users.


 * Thing is, it is politically impossible to call this region India or greater India and, yep, it's pretty orientalizing to continue to use "the Subcontinent" in official contexts... so I completely understand why the usage is changing.


 * I do wish we could find some RS to lay out what's so clearly in both of our minds, in both Britlish and English, so we could get up an explanatory hatnote about the shift and a clearer link to what we're both looking for when we type in "South Asia". I can find things like this account of the history of the radish where the author writes about it spreading from "southern Asia" to "India" but nothing that's a RS that just lays out our colloquial idea. — Llywelyn II   15:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PC or not, South Asia has become a standard term for referring to the region. University departments, for example, use "South Asian Studies". Definitionally, it is pretty much the way the article describes it. A core of countries with a bunch of peripheral countries that need to be included because of the history of the region - history does not follow clean modern national boundaries :) There are some differences between US and UK academic departments (Afghanistan is generally included by both, Burma tends to figure more in the UK definition and less so in the US version, and Iran is really peripheral in both cases - rarely included but often studied because of its long historical shadow) and I don't think the text does a good enough job of bringing all this out (partly because there is a political tussle amongst Wikipedia editors). BTW, I don't agree that the term Indian Subcontinent is orientalized. It is well used and is actually definitionally much clearer because it is tied to a geological entity. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Religion Section - No picture of a Zoroastrian Fire Temple?
I think there should be a picture of a fire temple in the set of pictures of different religious shrines in South Asia. Zoroastrianism is an important religion in the region, given most of the worlds Zoroastrians live in India and Pakistan respectively and the huge impact the Parsis have made on the region as a whole, as well as earlier historical ties from the Kushan, Saka, Parthian and Bactrian periods. Hurvashtahumvata888 (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Iran do not belong to South Asia
Iran are both 'iranic' countries with the same culture Southern, eastern, Western and north eastern Feysalafghan (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Eh, Afghanistan is both clear cut in South Asia and Central Asia. Nothing else. Iran is only included into South Asia by one instantion in the whole world and that is a department of the UN, and they only base it on stastistic purposes rather than any affliation towards the nations and peoples. LouisAragon (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with the previous user. Afghanistan is sometimes included in South Asia because of the common historical and cultural ties with neighboring Pakistan. But Iran is only included for "statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories", which can be seen in the article as well. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In the article it says exactly that - Iran is made part of South Asia by United Nations geoscheme. It also says that some scholars think that the entire Southeast Asia should be part of South Asia, and that some sources make far islands like British Indian Ocean Territory and Mauritius part of South Asia. The article also explicitly says that there are seven core countries (not including even Afghanistan, a member of SAARC), not Iran, Southeast Asia or the Island countries.  Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Lump it. From where I sit India does not belong in "South Asia" but you have to understand that we just present the RS that are floating around in this huge world of ours. Some of them are going to disagree with each other, some will even be wrong, but we still present them. The argument you're really looking for is but the article lays out who is including them and why and you'd be in the wrong trying to remove any of it. (Related, good on you trying to bring "Iranic" back but the cultural word in English is "Persian". The Persian Afghans are called Tajiks and are very far from a dominant influence in the country.) —  Llywelyn II   15:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the nebulousness of regional borders, its a somewhat pointless debate. That said, Afghanistan, while certainly ethnically distinct from much of South Asia, has nevertheless had very strong historical links with the region, much more so than other Central Asian countries or even Iran for that matter. The area was the gateway to the subcontinent and its riches for many invaders over the millennia. Traders entered the subcontinent via the Khyber pass. The name of the main mountain chain - Hindu Kush - says it all. India and its purported wealth figured greatly in Pashto poetry in a way no other land did, aside from perhaps Mecca. To say it has nothing to do with South Asia is a bit of a stretch. Bhutan, part of Nepal and the Indian Northeast are all ethnically distinct from the rest of the region and yet they are part of it due to geography. You don't have to be ethnically Indo-Aryan or Dravidian in order to be "South Asian". Btw, it is worth noting that Iranian peoples have had a long history of contact with the region, having ruled it several times (Greco-Bactrians, Sakas, Parthians, Hepthalites, Ghurid Pashtuns, Afghan Khiljis, Lodis and Surs, etc), Persian was the lingua franca of the region up till the 1830's and genetically Pashtuns and Tajiks are found to be very closely related to North Indian and Western Indian populations. And if you look at historical maps, what is now Afghanistan was politically linked with South Asia more often than India's Northeast, eastern Bangladesh or even Bhutan ever was. In fact, the Indian northeast was never joined with the rest of the region until the British came. The way I see it, Afghanistan can be grouped with both South Asia and Central Asia. Something of an overlapping country if you will. Hurvashtahumvata888 (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2015
Wikipedia's page itself states: "With the 7 core countries considered, South Asia is home to well over one fifth of the world's population, making it both the most populous and the most densely populated geographical region in the world.", however on the sidebar (where all the information is summed up) there are 8 countries. Afghanistan is sometimes considered South Asian, like Burma however Burma is not placed under South Asia.

Afghanistan should be removed from this list because South Asia's GDP doesn't include Afghanistan's GDP, or its cities and time zone. Someone keeps adding Afghanistan when it is part of Central Asia. Please update ASAP!

90.211.48.175 (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See the previous discussions on this page.  RudolfRed (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Images in Religions section
This discussion is moved here from User_talk:Aditya Kabir by

You've written "One top religious center per religion is enough", therefore why were there labelled five Hindu temples and just one mosque? -- 115ash →(☏) 08:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is only one Hindu temple, there are other temples though, i.e. Shikh, Bahai, Jain, Parsi. So, one per religion holds. However, you may argue why Pakistani one should be there instead of Bangladeshi one.  nafSadh did say 13:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

However, those are all polytheist religions.-- 115ash →(☏) 08:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't that natural to have many flavors of polytheism in the land of polytheism. All religions deserve representation. | nafSadh ]] did say 11:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 115ash, please be reasonable. If you think that all polytheism is one religion, then by the same logic all monotheism is one religion. Then I should remove all images of Islam, and keep only Christianity, the largest polytheism, there. Will that make you happy? Or may be I will consider region as one, and remove all traces of Islam to have only Hinduism, the largest South Asian religion, there. Whatever you logic is Islam will need to be removed first, by YOUR logic only. Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Aditya, you don't make any sense at all. Nafsadh, do you mean that the entire South Asia is the land of polytheism? That's ridiculous. Maybe India can be regarded as that. I am going to substitute few pictures. -- 115ash →(☏) 12:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That will be against consensus and also contrary to rational.
 * Basically yeah, I mean South Asia is prominently a land of polytheistic beliefs and it is the only place in the world where so many polytheistic religions exist. As you said India can be regarded as such. Same applies to Nepal and Bhutan. Note that, the state India comprises of majority of landmass and population of South Asia. Sri Lanka's majority religion is Buddhism, a non-theistic (!?) religion. Even Bangladesh and Pakistan has many polytheistic believers. We are placing photo of one temple/masjid/church for each religion. Don't you think if you want to place more than one photo for 33% of populace (muslims), the 63% (hindus) would want double of that?  nafSadh did say 14:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I know, 115ash, that I don't make any sense. Not to you. Because, you still don't know that there are different polytheistic religions. They are NOT one religion. But then again understanding simple things is not always simple for everyone. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm in favour of adding atleast one pic of each religion(Hindu, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism). Though one can find nice images regarding these all religions in India itself but it will be better if images from all related nations included. -- Human 3015  15:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this article is about the greater region and not an individual country, and not individual countries, I tried choosing the top or near the top center of each religion. Also national representation would be impossible for Jews, Jains, Bahais, Sikhs, and Parsis. As you can see, I have used a Hindu temple from Nepal and a Mosque from Pakistan. But, if pure religious weight is used, without any national consideration then those two could very well be from India. The best I can do is a Buddhist center in Sri Lanka. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, actually Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism have exclusively origin in India so most of pics will be from India. Also Islam is also developed in India. All main sects in South Asia like Deobandi or Sufism are developed in India itself. And most christians in the South Asia lives in India. -- Human 3015  15:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 115ash, stop trying to replace one of the largest mosques in the world with a Bangladeshi mosque, or the seat of the Patriarch with any church. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is true that we do not have representation from all countries or even all regions. Only candidate from Bangladesh can be a mosque, and Pakistan has more representative of Islam and has more famed masque. We can definitely try to get something from Sri Lanka, we have nothing from the southern region. We do not have any from Maldives or Bhutan either. So, none from Bangladesh is not a big deal. Religious institutes proliferated in north west.  nafSadh did say 15:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the existing buildings have better photos. Why don't we use those? BTW, Cathedral of the Most Holy Rosary can be used for Christian church if we want representation from eastern region.  nafSadh  did say 15:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, whatever culture present in South Asia is mainly known as "Indian Culture", either its Islamic or non-Islamic, both have Indian touch and entire South Asia is like Indian Diaspora. So obviously India will have more representation. -- Human 3015  16:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't compare in stature. The only other possibility is the Medak Cathedral. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Remove Afghanistan as a core defintion
Wikipedia's page itself states: "With the 7 core countries considered, South Asia is home to well over one fifth of the world's population, making it both the most populous and the most densely populated geographical region in the world.", however on the sidebar (where all the information is summed up) there are 8 countries. Afghanistan is sometimes considered South Asian, like Burma however Burma is not placed under South Asia.

Afghanistan should be removed from this list because South Asia's GDP doesn't include Afghanistan's GDP, or its cities and time zone. Someone keeps adding Afghanistan when it is part of Central Asia. Please update ASAP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.48.175 (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia is not a platform to proselytize or to air conspiracy or fringe theories. Afghanistan is a part of South Asia, whether you like it or not. Even the genetics of Afghan Pashtuns are no different from NW South Asians like the Jats and the Kashmiri Pandits and other Pakistani High Caste groups. Not to mention the fact that historically that region was known as Gandhara and under Hindu and Indian rule for quite some time, in addition to the fact that it has HUGE cultural and linguistic influence from India and Pakistan, in addition to the fact that people from Afghanistan have historically moved to India for extended periods of time and lived there, and continue to live there, in addition to the fact that tens of millions of people from Afghanistan have moved to Pakistan and some to India in recent years. All that aside, it is also abundantly clear according to any textbook and organization and the majority of scholars that Afghanistan is a part of South Asia. What organizations you ask? Well, here are the sources:

The CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/wfbExt/region_sas.html The Brookings Institution: http://www.brookings.edu/research/topics/south-asia

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/01/20-india-south-asian-neighbors-where-us-fits-in-schaffer

The BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12011352 Harvard University: http://southasiainstitute.harvard.edu/events/region/afghanistan/ The Institute of Development Studies: http://www.eldis.org/go/home&id=16238&type=Document#.Vjuz6KTYwfk

If Harvard, the United Nations, the CIA, the BBC, the Brookings Institution and everyone else in the world is wrong, I'm going to expect to see the rationale behind such reasoning. Otherwise, regardless of what you think it is completely South Asian in nature and a part of South Asia geographically and culturally and genetically. If anyone changes this designation, he/she will be accused of vandalism and banned and reported. Final warning here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.16.191 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.16.191 (talk)

I'm going to make this abundantly clear -- Afghanistan IS a part of SOUTH ASIA. This is a FACT. If anyone edits this page to take away from that fact, it will be considered vandalism.
I hope I made that abundantly clear. Wikipedia is not a platform to proselytize or to air conspiracy or fringe theories. Afghanistan is a part of South Asia, whether you like it or not. Even the genetics of Afghan Pashtuns are no different from NW South Asians like the Jats and the Kashmiri Pandits and other Pakistani High Caste groups. Not to mention the fact that historically that region was known as Gandhara and under Hindu and Indian rule for quite some time, in addition to the fact that it has HUGE cultural and linguistic influence from India and Pakistan, in addition to the fact that people from Afghanistan have historically moved to India for extended periods of time and lived there, and continue to live there, in addition to the fact that tens of millions of people from Afghanistan have moved to Pakistan and some to India in recent years. All that aside, it is also abundantly clear according to any textbook and organization and the majority of scholars that Afghanistan is a part of South Asia. What organizations you ask? Well, here are the sources: The World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/region/SAS The CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/wfbExt/region_sas.html The Brookings Institution: http://www.brookings.edu/research/topics/south-asia http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/01/20-india-south-asian-neighbors-where-us-fits-in-schaffer The BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12011352 Harvard University: http://southasiainstitute.harvard.edu/events/region/afghanistan/ The Institute of Development Studies: http://www.eldis.org/go/home&id=16238&type=Document#.Vjuz6KTYwfk

If the World Bank, Harvard, the United Nations, the CIA, the BBC, the Brookings Institution and everyone else in the world is wrong, I'm going to expect to see the rationale behind such reasoning. Otherwise, regardless of what you think it is completely South Asian in nature and a part of South Asia geographically and culturally and genetically. If anyone changes this designation, he/she will be accused of vandalism and banned and reported. Final warning here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.16.191 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing Afghanistan from core definition of South Asia
As can be seen from multiple conflicting sources, and from the hostile discussions on this Talk page, whether Afghanistan is in South Asia is a disputed issue. This should therefore be made clear to readers on the article. As it stands, Afghanistan is featured too prominently in this article, giving the impression that it's a universally accepted South Asian country, when it is most definitely not. There are many reliable sources that include Afghanistan in the definition of Central Asia, and some even in the Middle East. In accordance with the mainstream sources, the core South Asian countries that should feature prominently in the article are: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and the Maldives. Under the 'Definitions' heading, a discussion that Afghanistan and Burma are sometimes included in the wider definition of South Asia. The remaining article should focus on the core South Asian countries to avoid confusion.77.98.4.100 (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not revert the changes I made without giving a reason or explaining it on the Talk page.77.98.4.100 (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing Afghanistan from core definition of South Asia
As can be seen from multiple conflicting sources, and from the hostile discussions on this Talk page, whether Afghanistan is in South Asia is a disputed issue. This should therefore be made clear to readers on the article. As it stands, Afghanistan is featured too prominently in this article, giving the impression that it's a universally accepted South Asian country, when it is most definitely not. There are many reliable sources that include Afghanistan in the definition of Central Asia, and some even in the Middle East. In accordance with the mainstream sources, the core South Asian countries that should feature prominently in the article are: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and the Maldives. Under the 'Definitions' heading, a discussion that Afghanistan and Burma are sometimes included in the wider definition of South Asia. The remaining article should focus on the core South Asian countries to avoid confusion.77.98.4.100 (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not revert the changes I made without giving a reason or explaining it on the Talk page.77.98.4.100 (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone even reading this article or checking the references?

This WHOLE paragraph under Definitions: "The regional affinity of the bordering countries like Myanmar is always confusing. Myanmar with its low-profile foreign policy has not drawn much scholarly attention. Afghanistan was an area of vital importance for British diplomacy during the colonial era, especially after the second Anglo-Afghan war, which resulted from British outrage over the uninvited arrival of a Russian diplomatic envoy in Kabul. The British were able to occupy all of the major cities in Afghanistan, and got wind of an impending rebellion against their occupation, thereafter brutally crushing it in a pre-emptive move. They subsequently set up a puppet ruler and forced the country to hand over control of its foreign affairs to Britain. Afghanistan would remain a British protectorate until 1919, when it was finally granted its independence by Britain following the signing of a treaty of aid and friendship with Vladimir Lenin. After a brief period of border skirmishes, and the bombing of Kabul by the Royal Air Force, Britain conceded Afghanistan’s independence. Shortly after, Britain conspired with conservative religious and land owning elements within the country who were unhappy with Amanullah’s attempts to secularize and reform the country.[59] Following India's partition, it still never lost its importance.[11] From the time of the British withdrawal from India, there was, by and large, agreement among scholars that Afghanistan was part of South Asia, and a minority considered it a part of Southwest Asia as well.[11] The dominant view however remained that it was a part of South Asia. Thus, when Joseph B. Schwartberg edited his book in 1978 titled "An Historical Atlas of South Asia" which dealt with the cultural, political, and geographical analysis of South Asia, he included Afghanistan in his book.[11] During the Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979 to February 1989) American foreign policy dictates briefly included Pakistan and Afghanistan in Southwest Asia for political reasons, but their long standing history as a part of South Asia remained, and both Pakistan and Afghanistan were and are firmly considered South Asian countries on the global stage.[11][13][14][15][16][17][18]".

...is completely irrelevant. The book referenced (P. Ghosh), if anyone cares to check it, concludes by excluding Afghanistan. It goes on to say...

"After the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 the general consensus that Afghanistan was in South Asia was questioned and almost all academic literature that was produced thereafter considered the country as part of Southwest Asia. AFTER HAVING EXCLUDED AFGHANISTAN AND BURMA, what essentially remains of South Asia is the Indian subcontinent - that is five countries: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal and Pakistan. For historical, geopolitical, ethnic and cultural reasons Sri Lanka and the Maldives are also considered as part of the region".

So what then is the point of the preceding paragraph? Someone has just wholesale copy and pasted text without properly checking whether their reference supports their desired conclusion.

Can someone see to this change? Am I allowed to make this tiny edit without someone reverting the change for no reason?77.98.4.100 (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan is NOT an integral part of South Asia
The article needs to be re-edited to reflect the views of modern-day Indians who may not feel racially attached to a definition manufactured under British colonial rule.


 * 1) The article should be changed to reflect the view that Pakistan is stereotyped as "Middle Eastern"; while Sri Lanka and Maldives are stereotyped as an integral part of the "Indian Sub-Continent". Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar and Tibet should varying be included in the definition.
 * 2) The British Empire should not be used as a guide for the definition of India. Why shouldn't we use the Mughal Empire, an extension of the Chinese Mongol Empire that never reached South India? I believe at one point, everything from Dubai to Singapore was part of "British India"...

Megawave111 (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "I believe" is not an acceptable argument on Wikipedia. Please note that Wikipedia is a reliably sourced encyclopedia, not a crowd sourced one. --regentspark (comment) 11:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia also aims to be a neutral encylopedia, not a biased one. Megawave111 (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. But the neutrality comes from reliable sources. Not from what you believe. I suggest you carefully read all the articles linked at WP:5P because you're headed toward an indefinite block. --regentspark (comment) 12:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Misleading cartographic map and West Asia mention
The UN cartographic map of South Asia gives the false impression that all the countries visible on the map constitute the UN definition of South Asia. This raises OR:Synthesis issues. We should not imply conclusions that the source does not make. The UN maps are maps of convenience, not of policy nor endorsement. For example, consider the UN cartographic map for West Asia, from the same website. It includes Egypt, Eritrea etc in West Asia. These are African countries, and to the best of my knowledge, UN has neither declared nor endorsed parts of Africa as being West Asia.

To clarify the South Asian map, mentioning West Asia map in this article may be reasonable. But, I have no strong preference on this, am fine with no mention, or explaining this in the text somewhere, and leave it to someone else to insert the West Asia note, such as "the West Asia map from the UN cartographic source shows Egypt and other African countries, which are not considered as part of West Asia", if appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing sourced content and sources
You removed reliable sources and sourced content with this and this edits. You removed a para that helps meet the WP:NPOV policy requirements. Please do not edit war, and explain your concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not remove any sources. You had altered this portion and duplicated the sources through this edit, which was an obvious violation of the very same policy that you have mentioned above. —Rye-96 (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Rye-96: I am delighted that we both want NPOV in the lead and the main article. It is POV to allege or imply "an agreed universal definition". There isn't one, per the scholarly sources now in the article. There is no need for WP:CITEKILL in the lead or the main article, which is a continuing problem with this article, with: [28][13][29][30][31][32][33][34][35], [18][19][20][21][22][23] etc. More important than 9 cites and one POV, is to summarize all significant sides with 2 or 3 WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand what your objection is. There is no law against "duplicating sources", whatever that is supposed to mean. But you did remove well-sourced content, and haven't explained why. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do know that. She claimed that I have "removed reliable sources", so I said I didn't; I only removed their copies, while removing a portion which is already explained earlier in the text—right within the above section. —Rye-96 (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Map
Shouldn't the map include Aksai Chin, part of Jammu and Kashmir according to India in light green ? India claims it. In East Asia map, Arunachal Pradesh is shown in light green as China claims it. Any one map should be changed, there should be equality. Please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.215.192.242 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

v n n n n mn  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.50.242 (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess we could remove AP from East Asia's Map as it is currently administered by India. Or we could include all claims made by the countries in light green. 2.51.19.8 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Major cities
I've removed the list that was just added. The definition of major should come from reliable sources, not from what a wikipedia editor decides is major. --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this a reliable source? http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-populated-urban-areas-of-south-asia.html 65.95.136.96 (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No idea. But the larger point is whether the population of a city is an indicator and what level (10 largest, 10 million, 20 million) does a city stop being major. The list of cities will expand ad nauseam is we have a list at all. Either we don't include it or we, through consensus, establish criteria for inclusion before we do anything. I'm ok with either approach but we need consensus on which one (and the criteria if the latter). --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We could just say largest cities like europe article and set the limit at 10 million otherwise the list will be too long. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am assuming your silence means agreement so I am making the changes similar to Europe article. It is better than having no city mentioned at all. I am using worldatlas.com as my reference. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed four cities with less than 10 million in population (per the source you've provided). --regentspark (comment) 22:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

We should add a section on why the term "South Asia" is controversial
I think it's widely accepted within the South Asian community, even by many Pakistanis themselves, that South Asia is a geographic construct invented by the British Raj rather than by Indians themselves, and that the construct may not accurately portray the race, politics, and cultural definitions that South Asians think of.

Pakistan has always been hotly debated to as whether it's too Middle Eastern to be grouped in with the rest of South Asia, to the point where even far-left news outlets like the Huffington Post have been articles fighting against the definition. It's even quite common for Pakistanis to think of themselves as being too un-south-asian:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40278776?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I also think we need to look at the racial differences more closely. I don't recognize Pakistanis as being visually South Asian and a lot of people on the internet also seem to think that there might be a third division north of North India within South Asia.

A lot of Westernized South Asians do not relate to Pakistanis racially or culturally.

Homoeuropeean (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The only time I have heard of Pakistan be mentioned as part of the Middle East or be called Middle Eastern are by people with very poor geography skills. Pakistan and the Middle East only have one thing in common and that is their religion other than that both sides are very different by race, ethnicity, and linguistically. In my opinion Iran and Turkey should be debated as to why they are part of the region when they are different to the majority Arab population of the Middle East. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "South Asia" is a geographic construct hungover from colonial times and hence it would require reform - it would not be something that is taught but rather something that is lobbied for and currently accepted causally/colloquially.


 * It's a controversial issue within the "South Asian" community, and it's of note that several western organizations prefer to categorize Pakistanis in with the rest of the Middle East for convenience, suggesting that Pakistan's involvement in South Asia isn't the best fit available beyond political correctness gone mad.


 * We should correct the deficiency of this article by establishing a new section of how "South Asians" may not view Paksitan as a core nation of "South Asia". I might be able to write the section and provide solid references too, but I would prefer if someone else with a bit more time on their hands wrote it for me.


 * It should also be noted that Muslims are widely considered to be an ethnicity casually in places like Canada, Europe, India and Australia. And such thinking would technically segregate Pakistanis from the rest of "South Asia".


 * I think the topic of controversy is not whether Pakistanis are Middle Eastern, but rather if they should be segregated away from "South Asians", hence we don't need to discuss the peculiarities of whether Iranians or Turks are respectively Persian and European.


 * Homoeuropeeans (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM. The article has nothing about "race, politics and cultural definitions". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly, even if Pakistan was white, Christian and a member of EU, it would still be included in South Asia geography wise.139.190.254.44 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Pakistan being a part of South Asia in not controversial in any way with people from the region, if it has become that its only because of whats been happening there since the Afghan war of 1980s, majority of Pakistanis reflect Indian muslim culture especially the eastern provinces. You say he country should be segregated from South Asians, and where is it to be included if evicted from South Asia? obviously Middle East, how convinient for you, a separate region cannot be created for it, or are your types aspiring to a new region made up of Afghanistan and Pakistan, probably Iran as well, throw in Turkey too? 139.190.254.44 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Iran and Burma were once considered as part of South Asia, both are nothing like the region culturally nor belong to it geographically, so are not considered part of it anymore, if any place needs to be excluded from the area based on uniqueness its Bhutan, but it cant be because geographically its part of the region even though ethnically and culturally its east Asian, Pakistan on the other hand is totally South Asian ethnically and culturally i.e muslim South Asian culture and to top it off its geographically part of the area. All said the article is not about race, religion and culture but geography as pointed out by an editor above, Afghanistan is the only place that can be excluded from the region since geographically its not part of it, only SAARC economic grouping has got it dragged in here, basically if Pakistan had all blond, pale, blue eyed people practicing western culture and christian religion it would still be part of the region because of geography, it would not be segragated to set up a new region or be included in some other.139.190.254.44 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Pakistani's dont look South Asian you say? Pakistani's reflect every type of person looks wise found in South Asia region, there is no distinct Pakistani look, Indian actress Aishwarya Rai is an example of how diverse the looks of the regions people are, she is not even of mixed race but pure Indian infact Bengali origin. Alot of westernised South Asians cant relate to Pakistani's??? they might not relate to the average Pakistani like they cant relate to their own average countrymen, but they most certainly do relate to Pakistani's who are westernised, again Pakistan's are totally South Asian in every way, from the common man to the westernised elite, from the dark skinned to the white and light eyed and everything in between, including race, culture, ethnicity, even faith wise which they share with three other countries as well as with the minorities in the other three. Dont try to make Pakistan appear as something superior to the rest of te countries of the region, it is no different, I'm a Pakistani and say it with full assurance, infact we may be inferior to the others in many ways.139.190.254.44 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indian's consider Muslims an ethinicity bunched up as one? since when? a Muslim from Karnataka state is a Karntakan not same as a Uttar Pradesh Muslim, many Muslims in India dont share anything in common with each other from state to state, besides their faith. Pakistani's hangout with South Asians when living abroad, be they non-Muslim South Asians specifically Indians, for Muslims from elsewhere interactions are limited mainly to mosque, educational institutes and work place, so you will rarely see a Pakistanis socialicing with a grpup of Arabs in the Middle East, while in places like the West where all Muslims are a minority, the interactions will still be limited to shopping at a Muslim run store or butcher, besides the places I mentioned above, they even have separate areas when living abroad, most living in those of their own region and ethnic background, so Pakistani's with Indians and other South Asian's rather than with Arabs or Africans or Malaysians.139.190.254.44 (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:V issues
Welcome to wikipedia. I reverted your edit because I am puzzled how your summary is supported by the source(s) you cite. Let us start with your first sentence, "The concept of South Asia was invented during the era of colonialism by academics from the United Kingdom" which you claim is supported by the Joshi source. Could you identify or quote the part where that source is stating "South Asia was invented during the era of colonialism", and the "by academics" part in your summary? I see Joshi's stating South Asia did not exist in colonial times, that it "came into common circulation only after the end of British colonialism", that "South Asia continues to be used as a synonym for what was British India", etc. Please explain, discuss this per WP:BRD, and do not edit war. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The idea that the British invented the concept is actually discussed further up this wikipedia article, so that should be enough for you.


 * I'll keep my changes since that are in a subheading of their own and titled as being controversial - we allow non-conservative political viewpoints on wikipedia. If I wanted to be bold, I'd edit the main text.


 * Homoeuropeeans (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That is non-responsive. You can't be citing something as alleged support for your contribution, and if it fails verification allege the wikipedia article supports what you added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Only a small deluded minority of Pakistani's mainly from the western provinces with an Iranian and Arab complex, think they are par of Middle East, the majority are pretty secure in their subcontinent / Indian origins, it has something to do with religion and its mostly that lot that goes through this when they have a Islamic awakening, Afghanistan is another country they want to hook up with due to macho Pukhtun male warrior complex they have. 139.190.254.44 (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Afghanistan Again
I may have to remove this because its geographically and culturally in Central Asia. The Indus river cuts Central Asia and South Asia off each other. I will remove once i found sources the strictly mention Afghanistan in Central Asia. Akmal94 (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that a threat? :-)
 * Afghanistan wants to be regarded as part of both South Asia and Central Asia. See the Euler diagram on the SAARC page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, note that a country can be in both Central Asia as well as South Asia. Region definitions are fungible and this article makes it clear that not all definitions include Afghanistan. It's not a question of "it is there so it can't be here".--regentspark (comment) 15:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on that logic then Bhutan should also be called East Asian,it fits in more with that region.139.190.254.44 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

"Afghanistan wants to be regarded as part of both South Asia and Central Asia."

Says you, most Afghans see their country in Central Asia not South Asia.

"See the Euler diagram on the SAARC page"

That's according to SAARC since they are part of it only for economical purposes but it doesn't mean its geographically in South Asia. That's like saying Somalia is "Arab" because they are part of the Arab League when they are in it only for economical help.

As for sources, i found a few that place it only in Central Asia;

''The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a landlocked country in Central Asia, inhabited as early as the Middle Paleolithic Era. The official languages are Dari and Pashto, with other languages such as Uzbek and Turkmen also spoken. For country information contact see the official website of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Embassy of Afghanistan in Washington D.C., or see the CIA World Factbook.''

http://libguides.gwu.edu/c.php?g=259108&p=1729266

''The five countries of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan were part of the former Soviet Union until its breakup in 1991. Today, with Afghanistan, they are independent countries that make up the region called Central Asia.''

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_world-regional-geography-people-places-and-globalization/s11-07-central-asia-and-afghanistan.html

http://www.carecprogram.org/index.php?page=afghanistan

Afghanistan is also part of CAREC which is the Central Asian version of SAARC hence proving even further that is part of Central Asia. I hope the Admins allow me to put in these sources since they are reliable. Akmal94 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverts by User Nikhilmn2002
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 (talk • contribs)
 * 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 (talk • contribs)
 * South Asia 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 (talk • contribs)
 * 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
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/ 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)
 * You seem to be on a mission to revert every single one of my edits. 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? 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)
 * 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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.

"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)
 * 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 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
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
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)

Missing Data for Nepal and Bhutan
The data for the countries of Nepal and Bhutan is missing in the Köppen climate classification map.

--210.56.107.114 (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Afghanistan Again (2)
If no one objects, i am going to remove Afghanistan from the list because it is not South Asian any shape or form, but rather shares more with the people of the Greater Middle East and Central Asia in terms of language, culture and religion. Akmal94 (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Since you say "Again", I presume that you have looked through all the past discussions on the issue, and also the six citations that are given for the list of countries, and found some problem with all of them? It would be useful to know what problem you have found with all that! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Afghanistan is not a Desi nation. 96.40.169.190 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "South Asia" is a geographical notion, this is well-sourced. By the way, edit-warring and removing sourced content are disruptive behaviors that only lead to one thing : a block and loss of editing privileges per WP:TENDENTIOUS. Afghanistan has its place in the list of South Asian countries given in the article. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Not all South Asians are "Desi". In fact that term is not widely embraced even by its core referents. Lots of South Indians don't necessarily consider themselves "Desi" as its an unfamiliar word and not one they care. Northeast Indians don't know the word as its not even in their languages. Same with Pashtuns, even though many tribes are close to South Asian culture like Yusafzai, Khattak, Tareen and such. Even more so with Baluch. Kashmiris also I've met who find the word curious. So no, being "Desi" is not the prerequisite for being South Asian. Its a geographical-cultural label referring to a region with a shared history, economy, political interactions etc. Afghanistan historically belongs to many regions but it has historic ties to South Asia due to the connection via the Khyber Pass, its strategic location on the way down the passes to India, the role of Afghan rulers, soldiers and mystics in going to India, and its contemporary ethnic links with South Asia vis a vis the Pashtuns and Baluch with straddle the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It belongs to both Central and Southern Asia. 96.87.73.241 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)]

Iran should be included in Southern Asia
Hi,

FYI The United nations considers Iran to be south Asian.

https://www.un.org/en/events/citiesday/assets/pdf/the_worlds_cities_in_2018_data_booklet.pdf

Please included Iran also in this page.

Thanks Suz Anne — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzAnne270884 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It appears that you haven’t read the article. Only a certain UN sub-project (UNSD), and not the entire project, groups Iran in South Asia for statistical purposes, and that’s already mentioned in the article. —Rye-96 (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2019
In wake of repeated vandalism from anonymous accounts.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Extended-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Currently the article is not protected, so you can edit it yourself. Note: If you want to request semi-protection for this article (although it might be a bit early for such measures), please use WP:RfPP. See info on top of the linked page for more details. GermanJoe (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Afghanistan
Regarding your edit comment that there is nothing on the talk page regarding the status of Afghanistan, please see. Perhaps you are not aware that older discussions are automatically archived. Note that this is a much discussed topic and that, per WP:BRD it is incumbent on you to get consensus on the talk page when making changes. Best regards. --regentspark (comment) 19:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

sorry I didn’t realize that, nonetheless I don’t see a consensus in the previous talk which would correspond to the current version of the article. It is pretty much known by the most that Afghanistan also falls into the category of Central Asia in some definitions and that more so it’s considered a transitional area between those two areas, hence I don’t have anything against including it in South Asia here, however not even mentioning its rather ambiguous geographical position even once in this article and thus displaying its status in SA as the same as India, Pakistan or Bangladesh’s does seem a bit of to me. In addition to that what exactly is there to discuss about my other edit regarding the SAARC acknowledging the difference of Afghanistan towards other south Asian nations? I just pinged you too since no one is engaging in the talk and you reverted the edit too. Best regards --Xerxes931 (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a footnote "[note 2]" regarding this. Please search for "Afghanistan" in the talk page archives for prior discussions on the topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting opinion on a page move request.
Hello,

@ Talk:Aurat (disambiguation) is taking place about article relating to women of mainly of Asian origin. In Past 2 days only two opinions are received and more opinions will be preferable. Thanks for your opinion and participation in discussion.

Bookku (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Iran per extended definitions
is recommended to stop edit warring and substantiate his edit first instead. Iran isn't considered a part of South Asia in general definitions. The section there essentially is about Extended definitions where Iran falls in South Asia per United Nations geoscheme for Asia and is mentioned there for same reason. You are further recommended to self revert before someone else has to do. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

passive verbs
§ Medieval era, in the fourth paragraph from the bottom, said
 * Two of the religious leaders of Sikhism, Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh Bahadur were arrested under orders of the Mughal emperors, asked to convert to Islam, and executed when they refused.

At first I read "asked to convert to Islam" as meaning "Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh Bahadur ... asked to convert to Islam", i.e., they asked to become Muslims: a perfectly grammatical reading.

I have changed this sentence to [bolding added]
 * Two of the religious leaders of Sikhism, Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh Bahadur, were arrested under orders of the Mughal emperors and were asked to convert to Islam, and were executed when they refused.

Besides the verb voice, I've added a comma after the appositive phrase "Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh Bahadur", which serves to specify "the religious leaders of Sikhism" being discussed.

--Thnidu (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That is a very awkward way of writing it. Better to split the sentence to make it read more easily.
 * Two of the religious leaders of Sikhism, Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh Bahadur, were arrested and asked to convert to Islam during the Mugal rule. When they refused, they were executed.
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Note in the lead about Afghanistan
The sentence says, "The region consists of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka." The note says, "Afghanistan is considered to be part of Central Asia. It regards itself as a link between Central Asia and South Asia." Putting that note to isolate Afghanistan is contradictory. Without context, either the sentence is wrong, or the note is wrong. The note should be a citation and put among other citations to maintain the context.

The second sentence in Definition section is "Afghanistan is, however, considered by some to be a part of Central Asia, Western Asia, or the Middle East." May be the note (again, as a citation) is a better fit there. Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The note was added with consensus on talk page by another user after a few usual Afghanistan-related discussions on this page happened, it’s a sourced note about Afghanistan, not about Bangladesh or Pakistan, so why should it not be after Afghanistan instead of after the whole sentence? I don’t see the point as the note is standing there anyways.--Xerxes931 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Whatever the discussion was (can you please post a diff?), the position of the note is very WP:UNDUE and looks like a WP:COATRACK to prove that Afghanistan is not a part of South Asia. That view is already in the article, no need to challenge the WP:BALANCE. By the way, please consider that being appropriate for an encyclopedia doesnt only apply to India, Bangladesh or Pakistan. It also applies to Afghanistan.
 * I am not objecting to the content of the note, just the high emphasis put to it. The best place for the "note" is with this sentence: "Afghanistan is, however, considered by some to be a part of Central Asia, Western Asia, or the Middle East." And that as a citation like all the other. WP:UNDUE emphasis on Afghanistan is not needed. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It does seem odd that Afghanistan is being singled out with a statement that implies that it is not a part of South Asia. Given that the term is a political one, and that Afghanistan is a part of SAARC (according to the article), this is WP:UNDUE in the lead. It is better explained in the body as it formerly was. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess no objection is forthcoming at the moment. So I am turning the note into a citation (with the quote intact) and putting it with the sentence that explicitly explains why Afghanistan may not be a part of South Asia.
 * By the way,, if you are interested, I might try including some stuff in the other article that explains why Afghanistan and Maldives "may not" be a part of the subcontinent, despite some sources claiming it to be so. You may be able to help me find some good sources to use for that, at least of Afghanistan, about which you surely know way more than me. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah I can help, we should defiantly try to rather work together on those topics than against each other, the next days I will be a bit busy, but after that I can look and send you sources for the The statements you wanna add and help with the phrasing/wording of the statement --Xerxes931 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In such cases we should express both views, trying to achieve a correct balance on the matter. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If I am not reading the sources wrong, what I have learned from a a few days of reading and rereading is that Afghanistan is not a part of the geological/geographical entity of Indian Subcontinent, which lies on the Indian plate (Afghanistan does not, and neither does Maldives), though some writers include them into the subcontinent when they actually mean South Asia.
 * As for the political entity, South Asia, Afghanistan is sometimes included and and sometimes not (when not included, it is described as part of West Asia, Central Asia, and even unincluded into any of those regions).
 * As for Afghanistan, I believe, this unique character of Afghanistan, like everybody wants her and she wants none of them, should be included into the Afghanistan article (in neutral language and with cites and sources).
 * If I am not wrong we could collaborate to keep that information clear across several articles. Aditya (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes more or less, Afghanistan’s position in the SAARC as a political one is also discussed here ( https://books.google.nl/books?id=yTzKWI42uR4C&pg=PT58&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=Nevertheless%20afghanistan&f=false), It states that one can not overlook that Afghanistan is historically and culturally not as tied to South Asia as the other members are and that Hamid Karzai( the Former President back then who decided to join the SAARC) regards Afghanistan as a link between South Asia and Central Asia. The “new” president, Ashraf Ghani, however started avoiding dependency in trade on South Asia, Pakistan to be specific, and started cooperating with the Central Asian states much stronger and with Iran too to some extent, the trade route of Pakistan towards Central Asia, going through Afghanistan, was blocked by the Afghan government. Furthermore Afghanistan stopped using the port of Pakistan(as Afghanistan is landlocked) and made a deal with Iran using the Chabahar route of Iran to get sea access(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabahar_Port#India-Iran-Afghanistan_partnership ). During that time Afghanistan started approach towards Central Asia too and during those times the president Ashraf Ghani also stated “Afghanistan is itself a Central Asian country” ( See: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/483511-a-new-strategy-for-central-asia ) another good source is: “Modernization and Regional Cooperation in Central Asia: A New Spring?”( link to the book pdf: ( http://silkroadstudies.org/resources/1811CA-Regional.pdf )It explicitly talks about Afghanistan’s position in Central Asia, look through it and Strg + f for Afghanistan. Here are a few excerpts from the book: “ the role of Afghanistan is different today than in the 1990s. While it was only seen as a source of trouble at the time, Central Asians presently understand that Afghanistan is a Central Asian country that holds the key to their linkages to the south, and have increasingly engaged to help resolve Afghanistan’s problems“. Or: “ Most important, over many centuries Afghanistan was considered the very heart of the region.” Another one: “ On that basis we are justified to identify the five post-Soviet states of Central Asia as the main drivers of regional cooperation in Central Asia. At the same time, we must also note that Afghanistan considers itself an essential part of the region, and that this view is now increasingly shared by governments of the five former Soviet states.” Hope those sources can help, if you need some more I can easily send you some, just say what you need specifically. --Xerxes931 (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. Hunting down cites and information is one of my core strengths. I will look up some more sources myself. If I fail, I can always turn to you for help. But, are we agreeing about the information that I want to wrok into those articles?
 * By the way, I think the continent infobox is a bit unfit at the Indian subcontinent article, those infoboxes are suitable for political entities like the South Asia. If we turn both articles into political than that's a lot more work to keep Afghanistan out of Indian subcontinent. Trust me, every second sommeone or other is going to put Afghanistan into that infobox at Indian subcontinent, I when you are not there to watch over it, Afghanistan will remain as part of Indian subcontinent in that infobox. I am not the last one who would try to do that. Better to remove the infobox altogether. Aditya (talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you want to add about Afghanistan, maybe give a suggestion for some sentences or statements you want to add, then I can share my thoughts about it. Also I want to mention I really appreciate how we are coming to one solution for those issues by cooperating in a civil way instead of having those typical passive aggressive toxic discussions on Wikipedia, however my thoughts about the Infobox remain the same, I think it's still needed, it gives a quick easy overview on what the Indian subcontinent is, there will probably be people trying to add whatever they want but hey, that's Wikipedia, what would it be without people trying to add random stuff to articles and us reverting them, we will just try our best to protect the sites.--Xerxes931 (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have the exact sentences yet (when I have them, I probably will work them into the articles, with a ping to you to check). Until that time I have a plan:
 * South Asia: I probably can't or shoudn't change the lead or the infobox as long Afghanistan doesn't quit from SAARC or SAFTA (and that quiting can happen anyday, as both the organizations has failed to do anything for Afghanistan). But, I will put in the fact that prior to that membership it was not generally considered any part of South Asia, and even at that the official circles, both Afghan and South Asian, had serious reservations about the membership (in neautral language and with citations, of course).
 * Indian subcontinent: I will explicitly explain how that entity is "geographical/geological" and not "political" (based on cites and sources, and zero original research or synthesis), and add that Afghanistan and Maldives lie outside the geographical/geological boundaries of Indian suncontinent (again with neutrality and proper sourcing). It would be nice to have some sources stating "explicitly" that Hindu Kush is a boundary and Afghanistan lies beyond that boundary (the previous citation did not cover the fact to any extent, and hence I had to remove that claim). I have some good sources that covers the points for Maldives very nicely.
 * We can have another discussion with other editors about the infobox and the map after that, at the talk page of that article. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with those suggestions of you(not the one saying the Infobox on the subcontinent should be removed, I thought that discussion was already over?), currently I am really busy those days so I don’t have that much time for searching the sources about the Hindu Kush being the border, however since the subcontinent is based on the Indian plate this source , talking about the Indian plate docking on the Eurasian plate 55 Million years ago and creating the Himalaya and Hindukush mountains, could maybe help ? https://books.google.de/books?id=hwN7CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Xerxes931 (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's good, but not enough. Looking for more. Aditya (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Tables


It's a delight to see you working on the tables. Tables are scary, but still they would need fixing sometimes.

A few days back I was seeking help for those tables at the Teahouse (check here), and recieved some very good advise. One of them was discussing any change on the talk page first. Now that there's an editor actively improving the table situation I am relieved somewhat.

Tables are still scary, but here's someone I can talk to (I hope our past conflicts won't get in the way, as I remember working together with you in further past quite happily). Here are some of my observations:
 * 1) I noticed a lot of data is repeated, and some of that may be redudant:
 * 2) Land area of the countries appears three times.
 * 3) Country population also appears three times.
 * 4) Nominal GDP appears twice.
 * 5) GDP per capita appears twice.
 * 6) HDI appears twice.
 * 7) Inequality-adjusted HDI appears twice.
 * 8) Population below poverty line appears twice.
 * 9) Capital appears twice.
 * 10) It is possible to make the tables organised into a coherent set:
 * 11) Area data: Land Area, EEZ, Shelf, Shelf+TIA
 * 12) Population data: Total population (1950, 1975, 2000, 2050, 2075, 2100), Population density, Population Growth rate
 * 13) Economic data: Currency, Nominal GDP, GDP per capita, GDP (PPP), GDP (PPP) per capita, GDP growth, Inflation (I found that you have already done an awesome job on this one, though in a different purpose)
 * 14) Socio-economic data: HDI, Inequality adjusted HDI, Global wealth report (Total national wealth, Wealth per adult, Median wealth per adult), Population below poverty line, World Bank, Multidimensional Poverty Index, Population living in severe multidimensional poverty, Life expectancy
 * 15) Governance data
 * 16) Education data (this one needs more data points)
 * 17) If we can do that then all of the tables will have a totally relevant section to go into.
 * 18) It is possible to create more tables:
 * 19) Living quality data: price index, crime index, tolerance index, nutrition index etc.
 * 20) Health data (currently we don't have any, what we have can merge with living quality)
 * 21) We probably can move the table in the systems of government section upwards, right after defination, as a general data. The table already has more than systems of government data

Please let me know what you think. Looking at the current arrangement I am sure you already have a plan in mind. Meanwhile, let me pour you a cup of hot darjeeling in the hope for a wonderful collaboration. Jai ho. Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * May be. I'm alone, have to work 80 hours a week and barely have any time to spare for Wikipedia for a while. It will indeed by appreciated if you work upon the issues you are indicating. Any conflict will be taken care of here in talk page. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 22:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds very good indeed. Aditya (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have redone the tables. Take a look. Let me know what else needs to be done. Aditya (talk • contribs) 07:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We can add more parameters like literacy rate and education index and update worldwide governance indicators for 2017. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Shall I add those to the education table? With all those new parameters, we probably should have a sortable table for education. Say what? Updating will come next, after I get the basics right. Is that okay? Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was a good idea to merge all socio economic tables in economy section. Some of them are socioeconomic and that's why a separate section of general data was kept there to keep these together. Further, I think a tables have become mess. HDI, GDP per capita and poverty ratio suffice for insight. Adding too much of things like suicide rates (which I barely see mentioned anywhere else may not work out well here for readers). Looking ahead to make table compact. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per capita GDP, HDI etc. are largely overseen indicators are largely covered and monitored. Others like wealth, inflation (recommending avoid adding this highly fluctuating parameter) or homicide/suicide rates were quite good in that low profile horizontal table. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is entirely possible to make one for Socio-economic data (with HDI, poverty and wealth), and another for social data (with life expectancy, nutrition, cause of death etc.). BTW, I believe HDI belongs to socio-economic and not purely economic. Say what? Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's first enlist indicators that must be included here section wise. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. I propose three table: (a) Economic; (b) Socio-economic; (c) Social. Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes to the tables. Take a look. I may have made mistakes, as I was not completely sure of what you were trying to do. Opening a new thread to discuss tables. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean where we gotta place where they look good. I don't wish to skip statistics as they seem good for insight but ain't finding tables very comfortable to navigate. Can we split a bit more, like malnutrition may have another table. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Malnutrtion is a supplement to poverty (we also need CPI in that table to supplement both wealth and poverty), but we can move it to health, when we have the health table. I have started the new discussion. Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Operating on the table


Aman, here is the table discussion. We can begin with a plan. I propose to have the following tables: The green ones we already have, the red ones would be new. Let's get cracking. Starting with your thoughts. Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Country Data ❌ (not sure what would go in there)
 * 2) Population ✅
 * 3) Area ✅
 * 4) Economy 1: Macro economic indicators ✅
 * 5) Economy 2: Socio economic indicators ✅ (we still need Consumer Price Index for this one)
 * 6) Governments ✅ (may be we can move some parts of this one to country data, and the rest to governance)
 * 7) Governance ✅ (stability, peace, good governance, corruption...)
 * 8) Defence ❌ (there's a lot to go in there, we need to choose)
 * 9) Health ❌
 * 10) Education ✅ (we need to expand this one)
 * 11) Gender ❌
 * 12) Anything else?
 * Haven't heard from you yet. Should I go ahead? Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Go ahead. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Lost interest in the tables? Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 03:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just having a busier life for a while. I don't edit that frequently if you notice. So restricted to spaceflight articles for some time. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will let you know when I have managed to make some significant changes. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 05:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Note about Afganistan
User: RegentsPark User:Aditya Kabir Hello, I saw you Regentspark removing my edit about the note regarding Afghanistan without any plausible explanation. Moving the essential note( I did not add it in first place) from the introduction to some other place was never part of the agreement, I never realized that this edit was done, I was looking for the note and it was gone so I tried to search for the edit. User:Aditya Kabir we made clear that the note is important if we want to keep Afghanistan in the article, I thought this was clear Xerxes931 (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Regional politics
The Regional Politics section is quite bias in favor of India. I took the liberty of deleting the Osama Bin Laden image as its only purpose is project a negative image of Pakistan. If we include that image then we should also include images of Golden temple being stormed by Indian military or the Delhi riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by INGoNitE (talk • contribs) 08:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

GDP
Hey, all. I was just reviewing pending edits & reverted one that didn't check out: An editor without an account changed the nominal & per capita GDPs to 2021 numbers instead of 2020, but I couldn't make the numbers jibe with the report cited. Here's the citation from the World Economic Outlook Database. The accountless editor had set the 2021 nominal GDP to $4.026 trillion & the per capita GDP to US$2,075. The former number does not check out: If you sum the 2021 column in the IMF database results, you get US$3.320769 trillion. Of course, there's a reason that this page is protected & requires pending changes review. But then I checked the prior data. What we have for 2020 is US$3.326 trillion nominal, US$1,707 per capita. If you sum the appropriate column from the IMF report, you get $3.049934 trillion nominal. There's no way that I can see to obtain per capita GDP from this data alone. There is one really whopping problem with these data: There's no IMF info for Pakistan. It would thus make sense that the true regional nominal GDP would be higher than the IMF numbers, but we're not citing a source that provides that data. Does anyone know what's going on here? Pathawi (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering replacing this from World Bank data (here: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=AF-PK-IN-LK-BD-BT-NP-MV, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=AF-PK-IN-LK-BD-BT-NP-MV), as it includes Pakistan & gives direct GDP per capita. Any objections? Pathawi (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

History redirects
Several relevant redirects are being discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 19. You're welcome to join! – Uanfala (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Parliament of Sri Lanka.jpg

Second Anglo-Afghan War
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

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/anglo-afghan-wars#pt2 https://otik.uk.zcu.cz/bitstream/11025/15528/1/Karnik.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.199.161 (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Afghanistan: Middle eastern or South asian?
Anybody that considers Afghanistan to be south asian has obviously lost the plot. A culturally as well as linguistically aware person would have no problem breaking down the fact that Afghanistan has been and always will be considered as either a Central Asian or Middle eastern country. Afg.7777 (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It's important to read the article and the sources that back-up the information. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 21:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean sources written by people from the Western countries? Just like Mexicans refuse to accept Mexico as a part of Central America, Afghans refuse to accept their country as a part of South Asia. All the Afghan people I met in my life so far consider Afghanistan a Central Asian country, none of them consider themselves South Asian. Yes, Afghanistan is a member of SAARC, but they joined the international organization for trade and economic benefits only. Israel is also an associated state of the European Union, does that make it a European country?
 * Besides, if Afghanistan is included as a part of South Asia, why isn't Iran included too? The United Nations geoscheme classifies both countries as parts of South Asia.
 * There are double standards everywhere. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:2422:BF9A:7157:BB6A (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Just like Mexicans refuse to accept Mexico as a part of Central America, Afghans refuse to accept their country as a part of South Asia. All the Afghan people I met in my life so far consider Afghanistan a Central Asian country, none of them consider themselves South Asian."
 * Whoa, this all sounds remarkably familiar .-- Unfortunately, your IRL experiences don't count as a source on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, articles are written using reliable sources.
 * "...but they joined the international organization for trade and economic benefits only."
 * And?
 * "Israel is also an associated state of the European Union, does that make it a European country?"
 * Israel is not a member of the EU, but Afghanistan is a member of SAARC.
 * "Besides, if Afghanistan is included as a part of South Asia, why isn't Iran included too? The United Nations geoscheme classifies both countries as parts of South Asia."
 * As it stands, an overwhelming number of governmental and non-governmental institutions (including South Asia Studies programs) put Afghanistan into South Asia, something which is not the case for Iran. They are cited in this very article. The "UN" consists of various departments/agencies, all of which employ their own definitions. For instance, UNICEF puts Iran into Middle East, the "official" UN map (UN.Geospatial) on South Asia doesn't put Iran into the region, the WHO puts Iran into "Eastern Mediterranean", and the World Bank puts Iran into "MENA". The UNSD is another one of such agencies/departments. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed Afghanistan is a member of SAARC and is considered South Asian by the United Nations, CIA world fact book, the world bank etc. Black roses124 (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It sounds "remarkably familiar" because there are people who think that saying ad hominem arguments will win them the discussion. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 04:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I remember editors have had long and bitter disagreements over the inclusion of Afghanistan here, and that probably helps explain why that bit of the article is in poor shape. Actually, there is some good, nuanced, discussion of this matter throughout the section South Asia, but the text does seem to start and stop, and at times drowns itself in trivia (e.g. do we really need to enumerate the universities that do or don't have Afghanistan under their South Asia Studies departments?). Instead of getting bogged down in haphazard details or long enumerations of the convenience groupings used by this or that international organisation, we could have a brief outline of varying northern boundary of this region depending on the criteria used to delimit it, be they historical, geopolitical, linguistic, etc? At any rate, I don't think anyone will have any love for the way this is treated in the lede. The current version blithely lists Afghanistan in the first sentence, then gives ten (!) bundled refs, whose main purpose seems to be to support this inclusion. I've had the misfortune of checking two of them. One, I kid you not, is a link to the events page of one university's South Asian Institute. Another is this abstract: the link to the full report is broken, but there's a copy of it in the archive. I don't know why it's been used: maybe because it has "South Asia" in its title and then there are hits in the text if you do a Ctr+F for "Afghanistan"? The text does address the issue: At this point, a point raised by some erudite academics deserves mention that South Asia although comprising of seven countries- Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka in fact extends from Afghanistan to Myanmar. Yep, mention of Afghanistan as part of South Asia, but as some sort of secondary viewpoint; the baseline (one that as far as I can see the author sticks to) is for Afghanistan to be as excluded from the region as Myanmar is. Anyway, we could cut all this fluff out? The article definitely could do with some trimming: it's nearly 200k of wikitext and around a megabyte of rendered HTML, and most of that is because of the reference padding. – Uanfala (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Outdated GDP Table
The GDP table in the Economy section is rife with errors. Comparing the reference source that has data recorded for every year since 1980, the 2020 GDP numbers do not match. Further, the webpage citation reference is now listing 2022 numbers and could be updated with that information. Regardless, the table should not be used until it has been closely evaluated. I have posted an update banner on the Economy section to draw attention to it and I might take a look at the table over the next couple of days. Inomyabcs (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Updated. Inomyabcs (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The academic departments
The current version of the article has two whole paragraphs detailing the countries that fall within the scope of the South Asian studies departments of about half a dozen universities:

This content appears to have been relevant to some very passionate past disagreements about the inclusion of this or that country in South Asia (a 2010 example). Still, it's very difficult to see why this content should be here. I imagine that an article on South Asian studies could maybe have a brief overview of how various departments have been organised (based on secondary sources discussing just that, and not as a primary collation of information found on individual departments' web pages). But even in an abridged form, this would be out of place in an article about South Asia. Of course, I'm not suggesting that the work itself of those departments is irrelevant. If the aim is for the article to discuss the varying definitions of the region, then we'd need to look at how the academics (at those departments or elsewhere) have delimited the region when writing about it, not engage in primary research about how they structure their academic organisations (how academics understand the limits of a field is only one of many factors that determine how a department is set up). – Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How academics understand the limits of a field is only one of many factors that determine how a department is set up – Fully agree. The scope and name of academic departments (including area-related studies) are not necessarily representative of how the academic mainstream defines an area or a field. Sometimes divisions end up in a larger entity due to restructuring, and often they reflect outdated divisions based on historical geopolitical circumstances (e.g. Burma included in South Asian studies).
 * We should either remove these two paragraphs completely, or move them down to a section "South Asian studies". –Austronesier (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They surely belong in South Asian studies? Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)