Talk:List of ancient Indian cities

Source?

What is the source for this article? --Arbraxan (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

South Asia

This article seems to show that all these cities were only in modern day republic of india,which is historically not correct,because now multiple these cities lie in other countries. That's why it should be mention after the name of cities where they lie currently in south asia. Moreover,as this is collective heritage of south asia, it should be mention as such, otherwise it would convey biased and wrong information to readers, i.e. instead of word india, "south asia" should be used. Aglrochisat (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it is not historically correct to exclude cities now in Pakistan or Bangladesh, which in the their day were considered part of India. I think "India" is the right term to use, this this is the English-language term for the area they were in.

The historic English-language term is and was "India". One just has to accept that the boundaries of the modern country of India are different from what was considered India a hundred years ago, or two-thousand years ago. But it is best to use the historic term. It matches the usage of sources.

The modern day American term "South Asia" contains the historic India, but is not synonymous with it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The boundaries of indian sub continent always have been defined by its geography, rather then culture or history. Thus,South Asia, a geogeographical term would always be a better option than the word india, now which have different meanings. Let take example of Arabia, if we say it as ancient cities of Arabia and include all cities in west Asia and north Africa, it will not convey its proper meaning. Therefore, we must have to use the terms "Middle East" and "North africa" for this purpose. That's why, to prevent any biased approach, term South Asia should be used. Your thoughts would be welcomed on this topic. Aglrochisat (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)