Where did the term "subcontinent" originate? The term predates the acceptance of plate tectonics - it was common in Kipling in the 19th century, back when plate tectonics wasn't even a crank theory, let alone accepted science. - David Gerard 17:18, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

this is gay This guy has been repeatedly undoing edits that I make because they are not "pro-Indian". I make my edits based on a neutral point of view, to conform with Wikipedia Standards, yet S3000 repeatedly undoes the spelling corrections and citation tags that I insert. He continuously accuses me of blanking pages, vandalizing, and threatening me. Overall he is preventing the development of this article.-- 76.106.41.173 ( talk) 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

What do you mean by Pro-Indian? Is inserting information on the actual size of a country make me Pro-Indian? The first line of the Wikipedia:NPOV article writes that The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. You need reliable sources? You can tabulate them from this list (area) and this list (population). All information in those lists are from the UN. And why am I preventing the development of this article? I have, for long been inviting you to discuss this with me but you have been ignoring them. You have been also blanking your own userpage as done here and here amongst some. If you are really interested in the development of this article, why not you discuss this issue with me to the end before making more edits. You recent edit required citation, and to that I've provided. Now what more is needed?  S3000   ☎ 11:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You repeatedly inserted information without inserting citations for them. After I brought this up, you choose to insert the citations. Before that you would repeatedly undo all my edits, thus hindering the development of this article. You also undid the spelling and grammar mistakes, I corrected. As to my user page; If it is "my" user page, than isn't it up to me to decide whatever to do with it? And yes, you are being "Pro-Indian", from your history of contributions to Wikipedia, you repeatedly edit changes in favor to India and sometimes without a NPOV. -- 76.106.41.173 ( talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

In fact I have been mentioning to you various times to check out the pages on the List of countries and outlying territories by total area and List of countries by population to ascertain the facts for yourself. I even mentioned more than once in your talk page but you didn't seem to care and kept on deleting them. I repeatedly undid your edits as you chose not to pursue this matter on this talk page or on my talk page earlier, although I've invited you to do so. Regarding your talk page, you are free to delete what you like, but why I wanted it there was because you were not acting accordingly. I repeatedly asked you to discuss this matter with me but you didn't, and you were continuing removing phrases. I initiated discussions on your talk page but you chose not to reply. Only now you are involving yourself in some constructive discussions, so further matters can be posted here. I'm also curious to know what are the 'spelling and grammer' corrections you made that I undid. Moving on, if you feel any of my edits aren't in accordance with NPOV, please bring it up in the talk pages of those articles (or on my talk page), and I'll hear you out. It isn't a problem with me. I'm always open to people's opinion as long as they are relevant.  S3000   ☎ 13:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Can't we tone down the statement that:

It is also known as the "Subcontinent" and, though "Indian subcontinent" is the standard name used in international circles, "Indo-Pak subcontinent", which has cache primarily in the nation of Pakistan.

a little? Maybe something like:

It is also known just as the "Subcontinent", the "Indian subcontinent", and the "Indo-Pak subcontinent", with the last phrase preferred in Pakistan.

-- iFaqeer 21:06, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

No.-- D-Boy 04:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey, how about renaming the article to Indo-Pak-Bangla-Lanka-Nepali Subcontinent? Oh forgot to add Bhutanese. LOL! -- Incman| वार्ता 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This is an old topic from the dates, but just in case it every comes back, as a Bangladeshi, I do not like the use of Indian Subcontinent to describe the countries in South Asia, since there is the terminology "South Asia" itself. However, as far as I know, from the geological perspective, "Indian Subcontinent" is a technical term and it should be left as it is, unless one can cite technical papers (produced inside and outside South Asia) that use a different terminology.

urnonav 06:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Come on people, this is insane. Just because Pakistan was craved out of India just over half a century ago doesn't mean we have to change the name to Indo-Pak subcontinent. This name has been long standing because the subcontinent is located on the Indian Plate and because a large part of it is surrounded by the Indian Ocean. Then Iran may also want their name there because they form on the Indian plate too! and right from Indonesia and Australia, to South Africa would wanna be part of the Indian Ocean name! Is that logical? Although Sri Lanka and Nepal were not part of British India, they too come under the Indian Subcontinent. So why can't Pakistan be of the same league? To make it simple, India occupies, by far the largest part of the subcontinent, making its name mark the place.  S3000   ☎ 14:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

That last line is not accurate logic. It is the other way round. The Subcontinent wasn't named after India. The Republic of India was named after the Subcontinent. Historically, the region of India has been there for a few millenia now. The RoI, however, is recent creation dating back only to late 40s. That is also when citizens of the other countries in the geographic Indian region started complaining about the terminology "Indian Subcontinent" since Indian now gets used mainly as a demonym for RoI, not as a geographic description - not since 1947. Why can we not refer to it as just the "Subcontinent"? AFAIK, no other "subcontinents" exist. Also, what is the map of Indian vegetation doing in this article? Shouldn't it be in the article India? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.45.201 ( talk) 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The fact is, we can't change a hallmark name just to suite the preferences of some groups. Pakistan, Bangladesh and other countries that form the subcontinent only came into existance (as a sovereign country) recently, while the name India has been used to mark the entire place for centuries (greater India). I meant by my last line (in my earlier post) that India is the most significant country in the subcontinent (in terms of size and population), and that's why the name hasn't changed. In my opinion, the name 'subcontinent' is too ambiguous. Indian subcontinent marks that it's on the Indian ocean, Indian plate, and the most significant landmark on it is India.  S3000   ☎ 10:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

"we can't change a hallmark name just to suite the preferences of some groups". Of course we can. That's exactly how all names are arrived at anyway - by satisfying someone's whims. Btw, India has officially existed for one less day than Pakistan. So, by your last argument, we should call it the "Pakistani Subcontinent". Right?

I agree that the "region of India" has existed as long as Asia has existed, but the naming has become too ambiguous after creation of the Republic of India: "Indian" can be a demonym of Republic of India or of the region. The centuries you are referring to, are centuries when Republic of India did not exist. Nor did any country called India. It was strictly a regional definition. Today "Indian" always refers to Republic of India except in few cases like the subcontinent and ocean. For example, "Indian population" or "Indian states" never refers to Nepal or Bangladesh or Bhutan. So, for anything that refers to the region and not the state, logic dictates we move towards "South Asia". It's a question of keeping up with time as things change. Do we still call Americas "New World" or Germany "Prussia"? No, because there is no point of living in the past. Btw, how is "subcontinent" too ambiguous? What else can it refer to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.45.201 ( talk) 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Since the subcontinent is lying on the Indian plate and is bounded by the Indian ocean, do we also change the name of the two; by calling them 'South Asian Plate' and 'South Asian Ocean'? I agree India was founded only in 1947 (1 day after Pakistan), but you have to understand that the land that is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and to some extent Afghanistan and Nepal were collectively known as India for a much longer time. The region was known to the ancient Greeks as 'Indoi'. The name 'India' came from the Indus Valley Civilisation, which was in turn named after the Indus River. Since then the land has been known to be India ( Greater India) to the world. This map from 1507 shows the area as India. The Honourable East India Company and Dutch East India Company which were founded in the early 1600s to enhance trade with the land both hold testimony to the name of the land and what the world has known it as. To date, everything that influenced the name area remains unchanged. The Indus river still flows, the ruins of the Indus civilisation still stand; both bearing no changes although largely situated in modern day Pakistan. Changing a hallmark name that has stood over 1000 years of time seems unacceptable to me. Although the region has always been in Southern Asia, the reason nobody called it 'South Asian Subcontinent' was to give a more specific picture of the place. Remember, the name Asia is believed to have been in existance since around 400BC. The name India (Republic of) was just taken from this age old name the land has been referred to eversince, just like how USA and South Africa were named after the region they sit on. So in other words the Republic of India named itself after the subcontinent. Going by your logic, even the name Africa should be changed since people may confuse South Africa with Southern Africa.

This cannot be compared to New World which was used by the Europeans for a very brief period as they were surprised stumbling upon a continent they never knew existed. Prussia on the other hand was a 16th century state / kingdom which today lies largely in Germany; just like the princely states India comprised of prior to independence.

The bottom line is we don't make decisions on changing hallmark names here in Wikipedia. That should be done by some international convention like the UN or something. In Wikipedia the articles are based on current circumstances. Currently the subcontinent is undisputedly known as the Indian Subcontinent and nothing else. You may lobby to change the name in the article once change has actually been made in that favour. We don't write decisions. We write on decisions.  S3000   ☎ 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

"Tone down"? There's no attack or fire in this statement, which has nothing to do with NPOV but the current state of affairs. Indian subcontinent is a term overwhelmingly used to identify the area and shortening to 'subcontinent' by non-Pakistanis always implies "Indian subcontinent". The current suggestion also sounds clumsy. We should also give preference to the standard (and most-used) name (Indian subcontinent). How about this?

The Indian subcontinent is also referred to, more simply, as just the "Subcontinent". It is also known, primarily in Pakistan, as the "Indo-Pak subcontinent".

By prevaricating we're not going to do anything but shroud the truth of the subject. We should just tell it like it is.-- LordSuryaofShropshire 21:30, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Indo-Pak subcontinent? Perhaps only u say that lolz. maye next indo-pak-bangla-nepal-bhutan-ceylon-maldives subcontinent! FO man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.79.177 ( talk) 15:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

What do folks think of my latest changes?-- iFaqeer 22:53, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

A historical reality cannot be wiped out by current political expediencies. History and politics should not be merged - here we are writing an encyclopaedia, and not discussing political dynamics and terminology. As such, I shall be restoring the page with suitable contents at the earliest as a redirection to South Asia is not appropriate. -- Bhadani 16:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Someone did the job. I shall try to contribute more, as and when possible. -- Bhadani 16:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Excellent. The reinstatement is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.197.240 ( talk • contribs) of 20.05.06

You may register if you wish. -- Bhadani 16:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Can someone explain why the "see also" is constantly reverted? Unless it is explained here, I will revert to a version with it. Hornplease 05:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply

As far as I know, most of the Balochistan region lies within the Iranian Plateau which geographically is not a part of the Indian subcontinent. Since Balochistan covers a major part of Pakistan, the article should mention that geographically not entire Pakistan lies within the Indian subcontinent. Remember, Indian subcontinent is a geographic term, not a political one. -- Incman| वार्ता 20:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Interestingly, User:Bharatveer first blanked the references (with the reference section too!) twice [1], [2], and then even more interestingly, changed the text to claim that Balochistan is a part of the region!! I'd request User:Bharatveer to read the reference before making such reverts and changes. Specifically, when the text (and the reference) said that Pakistan (excluding Balochistan) is part of Indian subcontinent, I don't understand the logic behind changing the text to include Balochistan as a separate country under Indian subcontinent! -- Ragib 08:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The cite regarding Balochistan refers to the Iranian province of Sistan-e-Baluchistan, not the Pakistani province of Balochistan. A better cite is needed. Afghan Historian 17:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Though the article is about Sistan-e-Baluchistan, it clearly says that Balochistan (and not just Iranian Balouchistan) lies in the Middle East. The article makes the point very clear. -- Incman| वार्ता 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Also, scroll down and read the sections on History and Environmental issues. The article talks about Balouchistan as a whole. -- Incman| वार्ता 18:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I never denied that Balochistan does not lie on the Iranian plateau. I was just asking for a more specific article, so other readers would not be confused. Their are better sources out there for this fact. Afghan Historian 15:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The subcontinent is not the same thing as the Indian plate; it is the geographical union of all the countries that (substantially) lie on the India Plate, and it therefore includes all of Pakistan. Western Baluchistan does not lie on the Indian plate, but it does lie on the subcontinent, similarly, the Mustang region of Nepal lies on the Tibetan plateau, and therefore not on the India plate, but it does lie on the subcontinent. The definition of "subcontinent," according to the Oxford English Dictionary (1989 edition), "A land mass of great extent, but smaller than those generally called continents; a large section of a continent having a certain geographical or political independence; spec. applied formerly to South Africa, and more recently to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka." Note geographical or political. As citations of usage, the OED gives: "1971 R. RUSSELL in Aziz Ahmad's Shore & Wave 'The novel in Urdu, as in all the modern languages of the South Asian sub-continent, is of very recent growth.' 1972 Times of India 'Nov. 11/4 Mr. Azad outlined his Government's views on the political problems of the sub-continent' 1978 L. HEREN Growing up on The Times v. 175 'Many Indians refused to accept the partition of the sub-continent.'" In other words, the term "South Asian subcontinent" or "Indian subcontinent" is primarily a geographical, but not entirely a geographical term, and it is not identical to the Indian (techtonic) plate. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Is it any different from South Asia? How? Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I was looking at some plate studies of Nepal and from what I can see, a good portion of it does not lie on the Indian subcontinent proper, but on the edge of the Tibetan plateau, within the Himalayan range. Afghan Historian 15:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• It is a geographical reality. -- Bhadani ( talk) 17:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Can we please go ahead and remove Indian subcontinent from this awful merge proposal? Both Indian subcontinent, the geographical/geological article, and Indianized kingdom, the historical article, ought to be removed from considered merger with the other articles about contemporary culture. Apparently the main discussion of the merger is going on at Talk:Indies. -- arkuat (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Is this any different from the Indian Plate? If so, how? Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 03:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The Indian Plate includes oceanic crust out to the plate boundaries under the ocean; the subcontinent does not include any oceanic crust, but only top-floating continental crust. These are geological terms. -- arkuat (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

So far I have seen only political use of the term Indian Subcontinent. Is there any source that claims that the term applies to the top-floating continental crust of the Indian Plate, or something like that? Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 10:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Indian subcontinent is a geographical term that has been around for a long time. Only recently it is not considered politically correct by people of certain countries in the region. South Asia is a more recent term and mostly used by Americans in common use. Even cricket commentators call it "The Subcontinent". I don't mind the merge proposal as long as the South Asia article mentions " also known as Indian Subcontinent" at the beginning rather than "also know as Southern Asia". Saying Southern Asia is an over kill a rarely used term. A search on Indian Subcontinent should also direct to "South Asia" article in that case. Merging the two articles and not acknowledging the name Indian Subcontinent would be suppressing facts. Indoresearch ( talk) 11:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

When a person with some info regarding this area will read this article, he or she will know which countries are in the sub-continent. However, if a person with not so good general knowledge will see this article, I am not quite sure he will immediately know the countries that are the part of this region. I mean read this;

"The subcontinent includes parts of various countries in South Asia, including those on the continental crust (India, Pakistan east of the river Indus, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan), an island country on the continental shelf (Sri Lanka), and an island country rising above the oceanic crust (the Maldives)."

'Including those' means that these are the countries in this region but there may be others too. Just an observation, I may be wrong. Marsa Lahminal ( talk) 15:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

It seems pointless to have separate articles for Indian Subcontinent, South Asia, and Indian plate. All political facts relating to the region should rightly go in South Asia since that is the acceptable term these days (cf. SAARC). Information relating to the continental plate should go in the Indian plate article. That really does not leave much for Indian Subcontinent to do. The reality is that the term 'Indian Subcontinent' is a political term that, while it is acceptable as a synonym for 'South Asia', is slowly being replaced by the latter. Pretending that it is a geographical entity defined by the Indian plate (I plead guilty of that as well) does not really get us anywhere. Therefore, I propose that we:

• Have only two articles, one for the tectonic plate and one for the political entity
• Title the political entity 'South Asia' with Indian subcontinent redirecting to South Asia
• Ensure that the Indian subcontinent term is recognized as being equivalent to South Asia in the lead and explain that the term is historical rather than current.

Comments? -- Regents Park ( sink with my stocks) 17:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

To reduce the clutter of way too many articles on similar topics, I must support this proposal. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 12:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Indian subcontinent is a geographical term that has been around for a long time. Only recently it is not considered politically correct by people of certain countries in the region. South Asia is a more recent term and mostly used by Americans in common use. Even cricket commentators call it "The Subcontinent". I don't mind the merge proposal as long as the South Asia article mentions " also known as Indian Subcontinent" at the beginning rather than "also know as Southern Asia". Saying Southern Asia is an over kill a rarely used term. A search on Indian Subcontinent should also direct to "South Asia" article in that case. Merging the two articles and not acknowledging the name Indian Subcontinent would be suppressing facts. Indoresearch ( talk) 11:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

User:Indoresearch says it well.-- Regent's Park ( Boating Lake) 14:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

South Asia is far bigger than the subcontinent. For example, Tibet, Afghanistan, much of Pakistan, much of Myanmar... are all off the Indian Subcontinent, yet sometimes to always considered South Asia. I agree with Regents Park that there should be one page for the plate and one page for the South Asia, I propose

• Transfer of meaningful content from this page to South Asia
• Clearing of this page
• Conversion of this page into a redirect
• and a note on South Asia noting that Indian Subcontinent redirects there and provide a link to Indian plate.

Southern Asia is used by the UN, that is why it is mentioned Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Change of mind, I oppose Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose. The great number of blue links coming into this page are looking to know what " Indian subcontinent" means and something about it. As is stated on both pages, "Indian subcontinent" and " South Asia" are not the same thing. This page says

"Although the term Indian subcontinent is often used geographically, it is not entirely a geographical term. The approximately equivalent but more geopolitical term, South Asia or Southern Asia, however, sometimes includes territories found external (but proximal) to the Indian Plate—including Tibet and Myanmar (formerly Burma)."

The South Asia page says

"Some definitions may also include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Tibet, and even Iran."

If the two pages were to be merged, it would surely cause confusion for those who are new to one of the expressions or the other. You could of course explain the difference, but for any particular statement on the new page you would need to say whether you were referring to "Indian subcontinent" or "South Asia", and people don't normally read every single word of a page, so they might miss your definition of "Indian subcontinent". I think it's more sensible to keep both pages. Umar Zulfikar Khan ( talk) 11:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

But, what if we consider that both the definitions may be wrong, or at least not right? Neither seem to have strong enough academic support to stand up to the claims that keeps expanding the boundaries. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 11:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for that point, Aditya, and I agree with establishing with academic sources how both terms are best used, but I would suggest that someone needs to do that before anyone takes a view that the pages ought to be merged. My own personal feel for it is that if I use "South Asia" I mean an area bigger than the subcontinent, and I see there's a map on the South Asia page which shows more or less what I would mean. Here it is. Umar Zulfikar Khan ( talk) 11:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the understanding. The map already looks a bit over-the-top, and this demarcation of the map needs to be validated a bit, I guess (besides, South Asia may not be a vegetation-wise identifiable region as such). It seems the UN agrees that only Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka constitutes the South Asia (see here), which apparently corresponds closely with the plate tectonic thingy that's being discussed. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 13:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

^Aditya, the UN definition is not all that matters; also, the UN subregion of Southern Asia includes Afghanistan and Iran in entirety, both of which are off the plate and off the subcontinent [3] . Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, the demarcation of that map is based on the varying definitions of South Asia. There is a huge amount of academic (and government) support for inclusion of Afghanistan as part of South Asia. There is a slightly smaller amount of support for Tibet due to this horrible event, yet nonetheless a large number of academics claim Tibet to be part of South Asia or at the least highly affiliated with it. Legitimate academics definitions and the UN definition of South Asia spread South Asia off the geological/geographical subcontinent Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Very true, though the other UN definition keeps out Myanmar. That makes the idea of the Indian Subcontinent only a sub-set of the varying definitions of South Asia. On top of that, Indian Subcontinent is hardly a non-political identity. Vegetation or tectonic plate has hardly anything to do with that definition. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 14:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The UN puts IRAN, which is on the Eurasian plate, as part of Southern Asia. The UN definition is a geopolitical definition and most of the academic or government definitions referenced are all cultural definitions, the IS is a geographical/geological definition. Myanmar is partially/mostly on the Indian plate, if we use the IS then Myanmar is more South Asian than Pakistan. These two concepts don't go together Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose. I'm surprised that this proposal keeps popping up again. The Indian plate includes oceanic crust, which the Indian subcontinent does not. South Asia is a cultural concept much more loosely defined. There is no reason whatsoever to merge these articles; instead, redudant information that appears in two or more of these articles ought to be removed from those articles to which the information is less appropriate and kept only in the most appropriate of the three articles. -- arkuat (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Would some one define what is appropriate for the three articles? So far, nothing but overlapping confusions seem to be the norm of the day. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree!

I agree with merging Indian subcontenent with southern asia!!!! Danspore ( talk) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Since, this article is supposed to have an independent and separate reason for existence outside the South Asia and Indian plate articles, let it be so. Keep the material that belongs to any one of those articles to them, and keep what is pertinent to this separate and independent article to this one. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 01:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Merging

With the verifiable and reliable evidence emerging on the South Asia article, this article seems absolutely meaningless. If there is no contrary evidence available, I am perfectly willing to take the step myself. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 17:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm ok with your doing that. (Nice work on South Asia, BTW.) -- RegentsPark ( My narrowboat) 17:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

*Blush* Thanks. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 17:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Still waiting for verifiable and reliable evidence that says anything about the Indian Subcontinent not being synonymous with South Asia. This shouldn't wait indefinitely, and since problems are more certain to be fixed, and will probably be fixed faster, if you are bold enough to do it yourself and consensus is not immutable. I'd rather fix this sham and be ready for a BRD cycle. Just remember, voting without reasoning doesn't count as the policies go. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 03:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Indian subcontinent and South Asia are reasonably synonymous so go ahead. (Do note however that Indian subcontinent is a term often used without reference to South Asia. That the article is at South Asia rather than at the Indian Subcontinent is not a sham but an expedient conclusion based on our interpretation of the common name of the geographical entity. While it is more likely than not that this conclusion is correct, there is enough doubt - in my mind anyway - that I wouldn't use labels like sham to describe the co-existence of the articles.)-- RegentsPark ( My narrowboat) 03:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the use of that incorrect word. It was an expression of the feeling I got from reading through the arguments made so far (BTW, when the term is not used with a reference, or in conjunction to, to South Asia, it still essentially means/denotes/connotes/whatever South Asia very much, which is perfectly evident from the inclusion of the geographical boundaries defined by such usage). Thanks for your support. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 04:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

No worries. I think they are synonymous and that Indian Subcontinent is being slowly replaced by South Asia anyway. Plus, we've got to do something about these multiple articles related to India that are practically the same. The sooner merged, the better, IMO. -- RegentsPark ( My narrowboat) 13:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose.. The subcontinent is only a 'region' within south Asia and India is only a 'region/country' within the the subcontinent..that's like saying north America is apparently synonymous with the USA so let's name North America to USA.. Khokhar ( talk) 15:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply