Talk:Indian

May 2013 discussion

This Index should be fixed....

Somebody is Vandalising the document - Indian means of India evewhere except for the Americans, Why these guys dont understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.206.5 (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2013‎

The fourth link under the first section heading is "Non-resident Indian and person of Indian origin". These people are of Indian (ie South Asian) origin and citizenship, but may be anywhere in the world - including the Americas. Similarly you may find "American" Indians living anywhere in the world. So I think the subheadings should just refer to "South Asia" and "The Americas" as simply and directly as possible.

Incidentally, any good-faith attempt at improving the encyclopedia is not "vandalism", and for your use of the word 'retarded' please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You can see the Link here.... http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Indian?q=Indian

Why americans call native people as Indians : Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics:Hispanic Americans and Native Americans page 572 by Jeffery D

Proof - Show me one that shows otherwise

Europe http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/04/23/india-eu-trade-pact-idINDEE93M09220130423 Australia http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/29/indian-stuntman-dies-while-zip-lining-across-river/ Africa http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/world/2013/05/09/man-accused-of-raping-four-year-old-indian-girl Asia http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2013-05/15/content_16501105.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.206.5 (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think your "proof" proves. I see no reason in these links that justifies changing the headings used in the page. older ≠ wiser 13:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

They are all leading news papers from respective continents and they are calling Indians as Indians (from India), So why are you modifying without showing the proof for your changes(What else u want?), Why are changing if you are not sure- This matter should be checked by some Moderators. What 7-8% (North and south americans )think is not the universal truth.

Why did you not provide any reply to my last response?

You are the one is Vandalizing the page. This matter should be reported.Anybody please let me know how to get the attention of moderators — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.206.5 (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you think your supposed proof proves or how it justifies the changes you are trying to make to the page. In every one of the links you provided, the usage is for Indians as related to South Asia, so I don't understand why you are removing the heading that groups entries pertaining to South Asia. Are you suggesting that the term "Indian" does not apply to some indigenous peoples of the Americas? Perhaps you should look closely at the first link you provided: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Indian?q=Indian older ≠ wiser 14:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

1) Indians means "people from India" in all the countries of Asia, Europe, Africa and Australia 2) Only in the Americas it means Native Americans.

That should be clearly mentioned in the Article. I am not changing anything related to America, Then why are you changing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.206.5 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not only in the Americas that it means native Americans. It depends on context. For example, the BBC (not an American source) uses the term when writing about the Americas ([1] [2]). Also consider the United Nations NGO International Indian Treaty Council. Point is that the term "Indian" is ambiguous. The dictionary definition clearly shows that and does not in any way suggest that usage is restricted by geography. The usage is governed by context. When talking about certain native Americans, the term "Indian" might be used regardless of location. Similarly, when talking about South Asia, the term "Indian" might be used regardless of location. Saying that usage is only one thing everywhere else in the world is misleading. You last edit to the page completely removed the entries pertaining to the Americas. That is unacceptable. older ≠ wiser 15:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In Italy, to say "walking in single line" they write "fila indiana" and the explanation is [3] where your read (translation): "The term has been used by European settlers of America (then believed "the Indies") who had noticed how many warriors of the tribe of "red-skin" proceeded in this way, each following in the footsteps of the following in order to confuse the enemy ...". "red-skin" is not the translation in american, which is, guess it: "indian". I have translated "pellerossa" with red-skin for clarity. Today it seems politically correct (but in common language there is still no difference) to say "indiano" for "people of India", "pellerossa" for the "north american indians" and "amerindi" for "central and south american indians". But for the common people "indiano" still refers to american indians as for the people of India. And in the article about Columbus [4] you may see repeated usage of the word "indie" for the discovered lands. --Robertiki (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Both the sources you have mentioned prefix the Indians with their tribe name (Like sioux Indians etc.) and not just "INDIAN", I want this to be discussed with other editors , preferably with people who are not from USA, Can anyone tell me how to proceed (I am new to Wiki)?, You are MISLEADING here, prove yourself correct with reliable source or just don't make changes as what you think of Indians and I stand by what I said and I have nothing more to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.206.5 (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Response copied from this edit in a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion closed there for stale and inadequate talk page discussion. 216.231.206.5 should consider responding and discussing here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

I invite any interested readers to consider the various changes made by the IP (as well as tenor of comments provided in the edit summaries). 04:02, 16 May 2013? with edit summary Edited to provide the correct and complete information -Phil was modified to a more neutral phrasing by User:John of Reading at 06:31, 16 May 2013 This was soon modified (nearly reverted) in two quick edits 10:13, 16 May 2013?, the first with edit summary Dont change unless you do know what is Indian - some guys are retarded here. (emphasis added) After seeing the offensive edit summary by the IP, I reverted to the version before the IP started editing 11:32, 16 May 2013 and inadvertently reverted an unrelated copyedit the John of Reading had also made. The IP then returned 13:40, 16 May 2013 with edit summary Have provided the Proofs - I hope you agree.] I reverted this edit 13:52, 16 May 2013 for a few reasons, 1) the suggested heading was inaccurate and not neutral; 2) the supposed "proof" offered by the IP was nothing more than a few isolated examples of usage in various parts of the world; and 3) references and external links are not allowed on disambiguation pages. The IP then took a different tact 14:35, 16 May 2013 by completely removing mention of American Indians from the disambiguation page. I reverted this edit 14:46, 16 May 2013. Shortly after, 14:50, 16 May 2013, I offered a modification Shortly after, 14:56, 16 May 2013, the IP left a message on my talk page that is worth reading in light of this dispute. User:Cnilep, perhaps unaware of the previous edits, performed a cleanup of the disambiguation page 07:24, 17 May 2013 that again altered the headings for the subsections. For several days there were no edits other than simple vandalism and reversions. A different IP 72.28.201.183, then made a series of several edits on 26 May 2013?, notably with this shouting edit summary disambiguating American Indians from South Asian Hindians. HINDIANS ARE PEOPLE FROM THE COUNTRY OF INDIA THAT ARE A DISTINCT RACE AND CIVILIZATION SEPARATE FROM THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA. I reverted these edits 16:50, 26 May 2013 as they introduced a variety of disambiguation Don'ts. There followed several weeks of mostly vandalism and counter-vandalism edits, with a few other unrelated additions edits. IP 216.231.206.5 returned 10:41, 27 August 2013 with the edit summary Correcting it - Sources have been provided in the Talk page already. Need to put them here in the Article. It should be noted that at this time, the supposed sources provided on the talk page had all been disputed as not proving what the IP seems to think they proved. I reverted the edits 11:20, 27 August 2013 The IP followed with 05:59, 2 September 2013, which Cluebot reverted 05:59, 2 September 2013 I can only guess that this is the automatic script the IP refers to above. It should be noted that I have nothing to do with Cluebot and it does not in fact prevent all changes to the page, only those that look like vandalism according to whatever algorithm Cluebot uses. To sum up, I feel the IP edits are not neutral and do not accurately reflect the ambiguity inherent in the term Indian. older ? wiser 12:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have provided multiple sources and why they are disputed? I dont understand how come somebody says that Websites like BBC are not reliable? I need to get the clarification for this Incomplete information. All I want to have is provided the complete information.

There are not isolated examples. How many more sources you want? Why is he not proving his point by citing the sources other than claiming biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.206.5 (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Why there is no reply - Why you guys are not justifying your point by providing sources? I have raised so many questions and there is no reply other than you keep telling what you think it should be correct? "None of your sources are not proving that Indians means "American Indians" anywhere",All the time they prefix American except for amerian souces , where Indians means American souces, If you cannot prove your point why should you keep the Incorrect Information. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.206.5 (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no reply because it is not clear what the issue is. If you are asking why this page points to things other than Indian people, that is because it is a disambiguation page. It points to all of the things that might be called "Indian". That includes Indian people, things from India, a make of motorcycle, at least two movies, and also Indigenous American people, among other things. If you are asking for a reply of another kind, then you will need to be more explicit. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue is, when you type "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans" in the address bar it goes to display the page about American from United states instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(disambiguation) page, but when you type "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indians" it goes to Disambiguation page. Both are ambiguous words ,so how come each word is treated differently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.206.5 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Misnomer

Referring to the term "Indian" as a misnomer when applied to Indigenous peoples in the Americans is self-evident. They were misnamed as such due to confusion by early European explorers about whether or not they'd found a new route to India and Columbus's mistaken belief that he had reached the Indian Ocean. See Native_American_name_controversy#.22Indian.22_and_.22American_Indian.22_.28since_1492.29. Hence the term is a misnomer. Electoralist (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Using that rationale, you might argue that the name of the country "India" is a misnomer. The country name comes from the name of the Indus River -- which flows mostly through Pakistan -- not India. You might also argue that the terms West Indies and East Indies are misnomers as they have little to do with India. Moreover, if "Indian" is a "misnomer", so is the name "America."

The term "Indian" applied to the original inhabitants of the Americas has 500 years of history. Moreover, many American Indians, especially in the United States, call themselves "Indians" -- and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. It is likewise a well-established tenet of international practice that an ethnic group has the right to call itself what it wishes to call itself. Smallchief (talk 17:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Naming India after the Indus River isn't a minomer as India existed for thousands of years prior to the 1947 partition. It's more a historical anomaly. West Indies is a misnomer as is the term American Indian, by definition, as American Indians are not from India. (Similarly, the name West Bengal is not a misnomer, it is an historical anomaly ever since the term East Bengal ceased to be used in what is now Bangladesh. The name America isn't a misnomer per se, it derives from Amerigo Vespucci as a name for the New World (ie the Americas) - arguably using the term American to apply to citizens of the USA to the exclusion of others in the hemisphere is a misappropriation of the word. Electoralist (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

References don't go on disambiguation pages and whether the term is a misnomer or not is largely irrelevant for the purposes of disambiguation. The Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Native Americans in the United States both describe the issues around naming. older ≠ wiser 16:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

One, two or even a group of people do not speak for an entire ethnicity. There are just as many if not more indigenous Americans who are intensely opposed to being referred to as Indians. Particularly native Americans from outside of North America where the word Indian/indio eventually became a bigoted epithet implying primitiveness, savagery. It’d be like insisting that all African Americans should just accept being called the N word, or Italians/Mediterraneans referred to as Guineas, Dagos, Wogs, Wops, etc… just because some African Americans/Italians don’t have a problem with it or have come to accept it. Regardless it is simply wrong, rude and arrogant and it is akin to someone named John being called Ted by an acquaintance and never having the courtesy of admitting his mistake. On the contrary the acquaintance insists that John should just learn to accept being called Ted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:388:6080:10E:FC8A:5AEE:C6DA:3456 (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Indian English

@Arjayay: I'm not sure I get your point here. I reverted the addition of this entry because it doesn't belong in the body of the dab page. Indian English is never called either just "Indian" or anything like "Indian language". – Uanfala (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Uanfala (talk) - I didn't understand your deletion, and I don't understand your objection to my reinstatement either.
I don't see that Anglo-Indians, East Indians, Indigenous languages of the Americas or many of the other entries on this DaB page are called "just" Indian? - It is difficult to imagine someone unfamiliar with the term "Indian", but someone visiting this page should see Indian English as one of our articles that may overcome their confusion, as it may be what they are looking for - Arjayay (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This dab page needs some serious trimming down. The Christian community of the so called East Indians doesn't belong here (although there should be a link to the much broader East Indies). Anglo-Indians is a valid entry as these people were historically sometimes referred to as "Indians". The entry for the Amerindian languages is a valid one too – these languages are sometimes called "Indian languages". The point of a disambiguation page is to resolve the ambiguity of the title, not to be a topical index and not to list all articles with the given term in the title (see WP:PTM). – Uanfala (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Divide the page into three pages

Indian page,

American Indian page,

Aboriginals page. FlyingNinja1 (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

An indian song to present the old indians

Across the sea, strange men came To a new land, forever changed the place Warrior, called Indian Couldn’t stop what had begun Hit the warrior

Red man, oh that warrior is a dead man

To a new land came the tide On the place was a thousand tribes Indian and the buffalo Under telegram lines straight to the alamo For the warrior

Red man, oh that warrior is a dead man

Proud warrior is a dead man Oh that warrior, red man Once proud warrior, you’re a dead man