Talk:North India

message: Is there any way to include the historical broader interpretation of North India, in which Pakistan and Bangladesh would also be included? For example, I can't think of any reason why Bangladesh wouldn't have been considered North Indian before Partition if West Bengal was considered so. 
Perhaps, as a way to avoid the controversy of equating foreign countries with India, we can include a line in the article equating North India in its broadest interpretation with the predominantly Indo-Aryan parts of South Asia? This might also include a place like Nepal into the region, though the Sinhalese parts of Sri Lanka would have to be excluded because of geographical separateness. GreekApple123 (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be fine, perhaps we could add a line at the end of the first paragraph. Something like this: "Historically, in its broader sense, North India also included the modern-day sovereign states of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, where the population is predominantly Indo-Aryan, in contrast to South India where the population is predominantly Dravidian." Pinging @Fylindfotberserk. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  North India historically included Pakistan and Bangladesh? 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :North India's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "PetragliaAllchin":
From History of India:  Quote: "Y-Chromosome and Mt-DNA data support the colonization of South Asia by modern humans originating in Africa. ... Coalescence dates for most non-European populations average to between 73–55 ka."
From India: , "Y-Chromosome and Mt-DNA data support the colonization of South Asia by modern humans originating in Africa. ... Coalescence dates for most non-European populations average to between 73–55 ka."
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:North India]] 

message: The map showed in the lede (:File:North India opinion map.svg) suggests Northeast India can be considered a North Indian subregion on the basis that North India is sometimes defined as "India outside of the South"; but I have never seen anything suggesting the Northeast can be considered part of North India. I believe the broadest possible interpretation of North India is "India outside of the South and Northeast". GreekApple123 (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northeast India not in North India?  

message: I am not sure why :File:North India.png is seen as a better representation of North India than :File:North India opinion map.svg. It seems obviously better to show the varying interpretations of the region (including the broadest one) rather than to only show the broadest interpretation. GreekApple123 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The second one is based on linguistics, but the sources used in the article are not based on that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede map image 

message: In the first line of the article:
North India in a broader geographic context, refers to the northern part of India or, historically of the Indian subcontinent,
Can we put a link to Northern Indian subcontinent (which is currently a redirect to Northern South Asia)? GreekApple123 (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Northern Indian subcontinent