Template talk:History of South Asia

message: excellent template, the colour coding of overlapping eras is a good idea. dab (ᛏ) 18:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

message: India's constitution came into effect on 26 January, 1950. So India got the status of republic in 1950. So, I think it should be from 1950 onwards. Thanks -- Shyam (T/C) 08:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Republic of India

message: I have a added a nonsectarian image to the India template. The image there should be as objective and neutrally as possible, and the Emblem of India seems to fulfill this. This should be ovious for anybody with a knowledge of Indian history. (Besides the edicts of Ashoka focus on social and moral precepts rather than religious practices). But I think it would be better to have no image at all. Another good neutral image is the "History of Indonesia" template. If a sectarian images should be added, images representing all religions of India of India must be added, but then the template should be horizontal like the "IndiaFreedom" template . The Taj is by most people associated with Islam, wether righly or wrongly is not the question. (One of the reasons is that that it has inscriptions of the quran on its walls.) No single image would represent the history of the whole Indian Subcontinent better than the Emblem of India or the Edicts of Ashoka. That is not to belittle the Taj, it is a great building, but it is unsuitable to represent the whole history of India. (Besides the building is also associated with Shah Jahan, a man of doubtful moral character). --Combes 10:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Deeptrivia said in his edit summary, the template is for the whole subcontinent and not just India. The Emblem of India is hardly a neutral image as it is used politically to represent India. Quite likely you will find someone then suggesting that the national emblems of all the South Asian countries be used. The obvious solution is to use a neutral map of the region as this would not carry any religious or political links. Green Giant 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: or use no image at all. this template is clutter as it is. maybe split into several specialized templates. dab (ᛏ) 10:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a much better idea actually, use no image at all. Green Giant 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsectarian image 

message: Why does the template link to Cemetery H? The Localization Era has 3 cultural phases (Punjab, Jhukar, Rangpur). Cemetery H represents only one of these 3 phases (Punjab Phase). Would it not be better to link to Indus_Valley_Tradition#Localization_Era? --Rayfield 00:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answering my own question, yes we could this once we have a full article and not a stub. At the moment we better link to Cemetery H, which is a full article. And once Paleolithic in South Asia and Mesolithic in South Asia are full articles, we could perhaps link to them. --Rayfield 18:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cemetery H 

message: It seems Garwig (who may be pro-Christian) has been attempting to change the date format to a BC/AD format. If anyone disagrees with the original BCE/CE date format, please give valid reasons here for why it should be changed. Jagged 85 19:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The original format was BC, with one instance of CE to denote the change from 1 BC to 1. The conversion to BCE/CE was made without discussion and goes against the Wiki policy of adhereing to the format used in the first major (non-stub) edit. Actually CE and AD are redundant. I'll change this template back to the BC usage, and for years from 1 onwards neither AD nor CE need be used. This is an article about history, not religion. Arcturus 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has been discussed elsewhere, hasn't it. We prefer the NPOV versions (BCE and CE) on India related articles. deeptrivia (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original format was not BC/AD as you claim, it was a BC/CE format, which doesn't fit with either of the BCE/CE or BC/AD conventions. Since the original format was not correct to begin with, it would not have made a difference if we used BC/AD or BCE/CE. I also prefer BCE/CE because its more NPOV. However, I don't mind leaving the article as it is (without AD or CE). Jagged 02:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the edits and so far as I can see the original was BC, I'm fairly certain of it. BCE/CE is certainly not NPOV! Nor for that matter is BC/AD - POV/NPOV simply doesn't enter into it - and who are "we"? I think a good compromise is not to use AD at all, but use BC. After all, BC only relates to a person who just about everyone accepts did exist, and whose birthdate (erroneous I know) forms the basis of the calendar we are using in this, and every other, article. Arguably AD does make a statement that some people might not like - but BC doesn't, so lets's go with that - no AD, but BC for years prior to 1. I noticed that similar revisions to remove AD/BC have been made throughtout this series of articles. This doesn't conform with Wikipedia policy. Does anyone else have a view on ditching AD (and CE) but keeping BC?Arcturus 16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What's the problem with BCE, which the template has been using for a long time. Even if long time ago it used BC (I haven't verified it), what's the rationale behind changing a stable consistent format now? deeptrivia (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original format was not just BC, it was BC/CE. I know because I was the one that added that format under the misunderstanding that BC and BCE can mean the same thing. It was later rectified when we changed it to the BCE/CE format. However, like I've already said, I don't mind leaving the date format as just BC (without CE or AD). It's only the AD ("In the Year of the Lord") that I don't find NPOV, but I don't see anything wrong with just BC. Jagged 20:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, maybe this is what we stick with, unless anyone has got any major objections. In fact, I think the policy of "use BC but not AD/CE" is a good one that could be applied throughout Wikipedia. It removes the contentious AD, but leaves BC, which really only relates to a confirmed historical event. Arcturus 11:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed some extra dashes from the date list, and also converted all instances of BC to BCE. I did this conversion before noticing this discussion. My apologies! In any event, I think the BCE notation is strongly preferable to BC in every case, but I am willing to bow to the consensus. — Aetheling 17:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format 

message: I noticed this template (which is way too big, BTW) at the Partition of India article. It had been relabeled as "History of the Indian subcontinent" and "History of India" had been turned into "History of greater India". What is this? India is going to reconquer everything? India uber alles? Lebensraum? Arrant Indian nationalism is offensive to the other nations that share the sub-continent and should not be countenanced in an international endeavour. Zora 03:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone cant keep their fantasies of Nazism to themself. Do "South Asians" look around and cry "nazi" anytime they are offended? Though the "greater India" thing was wrong, editors dont appreciate useless off-topic rants and allusions to Nazism. A simple unexplained revert would have done the job. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: the problem is that "India" can really refer to both the subcontinent and the republic. If you ask me, for the purposes of WP, India should be a disambiguation page to forestall this eternal confusion. If you ask me, generally (which you don't), it was a mistake to call your Republic after a river which lies almost entirely within your neighbouring country with which you are on very unstable terms. I know this is a problem of English, though. Bharat is unambiguous, and the English should just have referred to the republic as Bharat from the beginning. But it's too late to change that now, so we need to be very clear about disambiguation. dab (ᛏ) 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone claiming the whole shebang for India 

message: --Ksyrie 10:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibet is one region of South Asia?

message: Can/should Myanmar be added to the template, as sharing a similar stretch of history? Chris 07:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No way, because Myanmar is likely part of Southeast Asian history. 96.229.179.106 (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Burma

message: This page has been the victim of a number of anonymous date warriors changing style from BCE/CE to BC/AD against consensus and Wikipedia policy. Interested parties please keep an eye out. --Steven J. Anderson 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date warriors 

message: British India was formed in 1765 or 1858, what is the exact year? 96.229.179.106 (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: British India

message: The flag is representing exiled Tibetans and the Central Tibetan Administration, a political body. It has nothing to do with the geographical location of Tibet
"No Need to Revert" is hardly a reason/counter-argument. 219.79.27.59 (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CTA flag

message: I revert POV pushing like this. The editor who inserted the POV obviously made false claims in his/her edit summary, as revision 223502569(by IP 58.111.87.99) never mentioned this placename.116.48.63.112 (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: False "edit summary"

message: They ruled small parts of the subcontinent not the whole. Since when is the history of punjab the history of south asia? Gqegg (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sikh/Maratha

message: Changed back to 'History of South Asia'. Khokhar (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of South Asia

message: this template is quickly becoming unusable. It will need to be collapsed, and instead of a good and detailed template, this will amount to no template. It needs to be cut down to something that doesn't hog half the screen when transcluded. --dab (𒁳) 07:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There remains the larger question whether the political history of South Asia comprises all of the history of South Asia. In my opinion to ignore economic history, social history, people's history etc of South Asia would be a gross injustice in presenting a comprehensive view of the state of South Asia through the ages. With this in mind I have created a template which I have posted on Talk:History_of_India#Template_in_the_lead which (although preliminary and subjective) takes in account all approaches of history.--Shahab (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: template size

message: Why is this mentioned under a separate section? I propose including that in the National History section. Sabih (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Sri Lanka 

message: Something has gone wrong with the formatting of this template, meaning that (at least) the 'List of Indian Monarchs' and 'History of South Asia' pages now have a peach background with the article text included in the template table, as of 2010-10-02 09:48 UTC.  I'm afraid I am merely a wikipedia reader, not an editor, so I cannot be more specific about what needs to be changed.  TCS
82.45.204.54 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: has fixed the template. an edit was made that temporarily broke one of the collapse tables. - Happysailor 11:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 82.45.204.54, 2 October 2010 

message: I have added the topic Portuguese India to the list.I totally forgot to comment on my edit.Please excuse me for that.
Thank you.
Nijgoykar (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese india 

message: *Maitraka
*Gajapati Kingdom
*Maha-Meghavahana Dynasty
*Maukhari  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.232.98 (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Others not mentioned

message: Would someone clarify what is the event in 1803 which ended the Mughal Empire, or is it supposed to be an approximate year? I couldnt find anything on the Mughal Empire page either. Shaad lko (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mughal period 

message: See . I'm willing to protect if it continues. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock puppets