Talk:History of South Asia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
I plan on making "History of South Asia" the canonical place for a grand overview of South Asia. I will therefore move content off and merge content from History of India and History of Pakistan. It makes no sense to divide history along the same lines as the present-day nations. Then, specific articles like British raj (or British colonial India or whatever) and Indus valley civilisation and History of India will give more specific information on particular time periods. DanKeshet
To The Anome: I don't see the need to put in "in the Indian sub-continent". It's somewhat confusing what this means; one could be forgiven for thinking it means "in India". And there is simply no question that the Indus River is almost entirely within the borders of Pakistan, and this seems the most useful and natural way to describe its location. The only thing that seems "contentious" about it is with the problem anon who perhaps questions the existence of Pakistan (or something), not a very tenable position. -- VV 21:56, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
To:VeryVerily VeryVerily:"And there is simply no question that the Indus River is almost entirely within the borders of Pakistan". Yes, but the Indus-Saraswati civilization had large settlements along Saraswati river's basin viz. 'Rakhigari', 'Kalibanga', 'Lothal' and so on.., which are within present political boundaries of India. So its you who seem to question/resist? existence of India.
I am sure that we all know that Pakistan and India both exist. And we all know that this is a site where we are supposed to try and get together and put together a useful article on south asian history. If we keep fighting like this over small useless issues I dont think we will ever be able to write a proper article over this subject. The usage of Indian Subcontinent should be acceptable in my opinion.
Now can we please just grow up and look at things as they were rather than what we might want them to be.
[edit] merges/moves
this should be History of the Indian subcontinent. "South Asia" is too inexact a term. At the moment History of India has the same focus. We should have one pre-1947 History of the Indian subcontinent, and only for times after 1947 three separate articles, History of the Republic of India, History of Pakistan, History of Bangladesh. Otherwise, we'll treat the IVC and stuff here, on History of India and on History of Pakistan. These will essentially pov-forks, and maintaining consistency will be a nightmare. dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Agree - in the historical context. Also, reverting recent edits to the version by User:Commander Keane as it was done without explanation. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 08:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
