Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Indian people

File:Indian people.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Indian people.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed Article Deletion/Merger/Massive Revision

Overall this article was very disappointing for anyone who would wish to inquire about their heritage, in the global sense and not regional specific (which again is very pitiful of its own state). I suggest for starters to change the ridiculous title to Indian. Not Indian people, just Indian. Its your name, your damn namesake, you don't have to elaborate upon it to that degree which just further denigrates your own ethnic identity and is an affront to the pejorative label used to native americans. Secondly I don't know why this article is so sparse on such a huge subject when supposedly you have one of the oldest civilizations in the world, and its obvious that you have some expertise on the matter when you're debating on how white/european you are compared to your fellows. So I would at this point just vote for the very least a name change, and suggestion to revamp this article and add more depth and character to the historical portion of it (major shifts, changes, cultural origins research and theory of evolutionary anthropology, modern shifts in demographics, SES (sociology), etc... Or start from scratch and delete the whole thing, or preferably, if there exists an article with more detailed information on Indians in any context, merger it with a name change. Please take it into consideration and play your part in sharing your ethnic identity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiders88 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Introduction

Indian actually means <All that is Otherwise>. By the way, the Caucasus Mountains are actually found in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Riojas Mclemore (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor article, outdated views

This article, especially much of the paragraph on Genetics is outdated, and mixes modern results with 1950s view of races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, etc. This classification has been long abandoned as being too vague and inconsistent. The modern view is that much of the population of India (ASI) and (ANI) have strong affinities to West Asia and Europe and also to a lesser degree with peoples of Asia as well. The Indian female-lineage mtDNA are varied and the the majority (50%) belong to haplogroup M, which is related to Asian haplogroups, but the Indian M is very different and is much more ancient and diverse, suggesting ancestral connection with Asian populations, not admixtures. The Asian influence is more visible in eastern India. The rest of the mtDNA haplogroups U, H, etc. are found in West Asia and Europe. The male Y-chromosome groups show much stronger affinity to European populations, and the very low degree of Asian Y-chromosomes (both in ANI and ASI populations) do not necessarily mean there was no affinity with Asian groups; it only means that those haplogroups have not survived to the present day.

ASI groups are older, but that does not mean they were "driven" further south by ANI groups (this "Aryan invasion" theory was always very flawed). The modern view is that ASI was present throughout the continent from eastern Iran to southern India, but language and cultural displacements happen without groups being driven out or killed. Northern India has had more contact with West Asia and Asia minor (Greece included). These contacts have made ANI group more genetically connected with West Asia than ASI has had with West Asia. But ASI and ANI are more closer to each other than either is to any groups outside. There has been a good synthesis between ANI and ASI over the last several thousand years. How closely they were related before the admixture took place is still current research.

Modern anthropologists would classify non-tribal Indians (both ANI and ASI) along with West Asians and European populations because of the reasons given above. And most Indians are non-tribal (over 95%). Tribal Indian populations (5%) show much stronger affinity with Asian populations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.244.4 (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NOT PROOF THAT INDIANS ARE CAUCASIAN!

Someone please change that statement made in the Genetics section, since it has not been proven as to whether Indians are Caucasian or are based off of the people from Mohenjo-daro. This statement is making people believe things that haven't been proven. --BoBjOnEsPiE (Send me a message) 22:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC) This should not be a platform to disseminate erroneous or subjective views of what Indians are and should be. Indians, both of North and South, speaking both Indo-European and Dravidian languages are vastly caucasians. So the discerning reader should be weary of those who advance their own agenda and delusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.10.118.190 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, please stop your shouting (that is how all caps is perceived) and read WP:Verifiability, for starters. If you believe that the article is currently inaccurate, then you should provide reliable sources for what you believe to be the truth. Until then your edits will be seen as vandalism and reverted, and you yourself are in danger of getting blocked. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird name - Indian people

What kind of word is "Indian People"? This article should be redirected to Indian. One does not call Pakistani People, or Chinese People or American People. Of course, I understand that it is partly because of Native Americans being called Indians in USA and Canada. For the rest of the world, Indians mean people inhabiting or having their origins to the country of India. rams81 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Narayana murthy.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Narayana murthy.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Narayana murthy.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sir CV Raman.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sir CV Raman.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sir CV Raman.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dhirubhai ambani.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dhirubhai ambani.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Dhirubhai ambani.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:AR Rahman-2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AR Rahman-2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:AR Rahman-2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

England is not a state

England is part of the United Kingdom, should not be listed at all. And it defintitely cann't contain more Indian people than the whole UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.127.166 (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We Have to create a montage image soon

Guy i think that we have to create a montage image as soon as possible Perumalism Chat 12:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have one, I'm working on sorting everybody out and should be up soon for preview. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101[reply]

My Montage

Here is a montage I created and am proposing. Images are ordered from historical chronology, and then ethnic group (Bengali, Tamil, Telugu).

Please understand that the Indians are a very large race, I simply cannot include every single revolutionary or Bollywood actress because that would be like 40 people, and I'm not going to either. I gotta give some occupations a chance (astronaut, athlete, singer, actress...etc.)

I know this mosaic is probably a cause a huge outcry of missing people, I'm aware and I know who those people are, but again, I can't stress enough that I can't put every single revolutionary, author, poet as you can how crowded it is and every single Bollywood person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PacificWarrior101 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian people.jpg

  • 1st row, left to right:
    • Chandragupta Maurya - founder of the Mauryan Empire and the first emperor to unify India into one state.
    • Rajendra Chola I - historic Tamil ruler who extended Chola Empire's borders to Southeast Asia
    • Gautama Buddha - spiritual sage, of Naryanka royal origin and the founder of Buddhism
    • Guru Arjan - fifth Sikh guru, completed construction of Amritsar and founded other cities, first to compile complete Sikh writings
    • Akbar the Great - Mughal emperor, who almost conquered the entire Indian Subcontinent and formed a centralized society in the empire, also founder of the Din-e-Illahi movement
    • Rani Durgavati - Rajput queen that defended against attacks by the Ghaznavids
    • Shah Jahan - fifth Mughal emperor, famous for building projects in the empire
  • 2nd row, left to right:
    • Chand Bibi - Indian Muslim woman warrior. She acted as the Regent of Bijapur and Regent of Ahmednagar Indian Muslim woman warrior. She acted as the Regent of Bijapur and Regent of Ahmednagar'
    • Rani Lakshmibai - queen of the Maratha-ruled princely state of Jhansi, situated in the north-central part of India and resisted British rule, became a popular symbol of resistance against British rule
    • Mirza Ghulam Ahmad - Founder of the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Movement
    • Abdul-Masih - Indigenous Christian missionary during British rule, one of the most important leaders in shaping Christian missionaries in India
    • Mahatma Ghandi - The famous lawyer who led the non-violent independence struggle, that eventually led to India's independence
    • Jawaharlal Nehru - First prime minister of India, and was the architect of India's independence movement, fought alongside Ghandi
    • Indira Ghandi - Daughter of Nehru, third prime minister of India and prominent member of Indian National Congress Party, who strengthened Indian influence in South Asia and wielded influence in government of India
  • 3rd row, left to right:
    • Rabindranath Tagore - Bengali poet, author of India's national anthem and Nobel Peace Prize winner, first non-European
    • Swami Vivekananda - Hindu monk, key figure in the introduction of the Indian philosophies of Vedanta and Yoga to the Western world, raised interfaith awareness, brought Hinduism to the status of a major world religion
    • Ram Mohan Roy - religious, social, and educational reformer, and humanitarian, who challenged traditional Hindu culture and indicated the lines of progress for Indian society under British rule, father of modern India and of Bengali reinassance
    • Ravi Shankar - musician who was one of the best-known exponents of the sitar in the second half of the 20th century as well as a composer of Hindustani classical music.
    • Rani Mukerji - film actress for Bollywood, she has become one of the most high-profile celebrities in India, received seven Filmfare Awards from fourteen nominations, and her film roles have been cited as a significant departure from the traditional portrayal of women in mainstream Hindi cinema.
    • Gurazada Apparao - Telugu poet and writer of Andhra Pradesh, India, wrote the first Telugu play
    • N.T. Rama Rao - film actor, director, producer, and politician who also served as the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh for three terms.
  • 4th row, left to right:
    • Kambar - a medieval Tamil poet and the author of the Tamil Ramayanam Ramavatharam, popularly known as Kambaramayanam, the Tamil version of Ramayana
    • C.V. Raman - Indian physicist whose ground breaking work in the field of light scattering earned him the 1930 Nobel Prize for Physics.
    • Viswanathan Anand - Indian chess Grandmaster and former World Chess Champion
    • M. S. Subbulakshmi - renowned Carnatic vocalist, first musician ever to be awarded the Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian honor and first Indian musician to receive the Ramon Magsaysay award, often considered Asia's Nobel Prize
    • Kalpana Chawla - first Indian-American astronaut and first Indian woman in space
    • Aishwarya Rai Bachchan - Indian film actress and model. She was the first runner-up of the Miss India pageant, and the winner of the Miss World pageant of 1994, also known for her various film awards and achievements
    • Sachin Tendulkar - Indian professional cricketer, considered best batsmen in the world

PacificWarrior101 (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101[reply]

This article is about citizens of India, not former counrries. Use only people from India after 1947.--213.47.76.227 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did, these people are from the modern state of India. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101He'[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/population-admixture-happened-in-india-for-2300-years/article5005336.ece. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Indo-Aryan migration

I find it laughable that this article doesn't even bother talking about the migration of Indo-Aryan-speaking tribes into North India who were responsible for the rise of the Vedic civilization mentioned in that paragraph. Every credible history of South Asia talks about this. It seems this article is written by and for largely diasporic Hindu nationalists who cannot countenance foreign roots for part of their civilization. Btw, for all those convinced that the "Aryan invasion theory" is a disproven colonial lie, there is a HUGE difference between that theory and one of "Aryan migration" which is accepted by credible scholars like Michael Witzel, JP Mallory, etc. According to the latter, Indo-Iranian speaking tribes migrated from Central Asia to the subcontinent as part of a wave of Indo-European expansion that covered south-central Asia during the 2nd millennium BC. They weren't a race but a group of tribes that spoke a common language and followed a common culture. Their languages become dominant in norther South Asia and their culture became that of the Vedic civilization, which mixed with Dravidian and local tribal cultures to form the Hindu-Buddhist civilization of the classical era. This migration needs to be included in the history somewhere. Hurvashtahumvata888 (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramanujan

I think Srinivasa Ramanujan should be included in the images. Brilliant mathematician. JDiala (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regions with significant populations

I don't think that Ecuador, with a population of 100 Indians as in the article, constitutes a region with a significant population. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Can somebody please update this table for the number of British Indians as it seems off by about 100,000 people, the number listed is only for England and does not include the number of Indians in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and so does not accurately capture the latest census data for British Indians as a whole (and only includes that of English Indians). Please see the British Indians article which has a link to the 2021 & 2022 UK Census Data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.231.170.170 (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1st April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: We have a consensus to move Pakistani people, Bengali people, and Sri Lankan Tamil people. Of these, "Pakistani people" has already been moved through another discussion. We have no consensus to move Indian people or Turkish people, and indeed, the consensus on Turkish people approaches a consensus not to move. Cúchullain t/c 14:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


As per: Arabs, Albanians, Americans, Armenians, Australians, Austrians, Bangladeshis, Belarusians, Bosnians, Brazilians, Bulgarians, Canadians, Germans, Italians, Swedes, etc...

Due to WP:TITLE. --115ash→(☏) 08:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

209.211.131.181 Native Americans are not and never were [[India|Indian]]. I honestly do not think that we should pander to myth and fallacy. GregKaye 14:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – Ethnic groups that have a singular non-gendered unambiguous name are usually labelled as such. See Hungarians, Swedes, Germans, Americans. Only in cases where such a form doesn't exist, as with French people or Japanese people, is the form "x people" used. Per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONCISE, this article should be moved. See others in Category:Ethnic groups in Europe, for example. The proposed titles are simply better. Insofar as "Indians" are concerned, "Indian people" could just as well refer to "American Indians". However, on the whole, it is extremely rare for "Indian" to refer to American Indians unqualified. The primary topic of the word "Indians" is the people of India. Conveniently, there is already a hat note in place at this article, directing people elsewhere for other usages. That solves the problem definitively. Please carry out these moves. RGloucester — ☎ 18:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support moving Pakistani people → Pakistanis, Bengali people → Bengalis, and Sri Lankan Tamil people → Sri Lankan Tamils. However I oppose moving Indian people → Indians and Turkish people → Turks. The page Indians currently is a redirect to the disambiguation page Indian, the term Indian may refer to the people of India or many of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. The term 'Turk' is very ambiguous and could easily refer either to the Turkish people or the Turkic peoples (the Turkish people of Turkey being a Turkic people), currently Turks is a direct to the disambiguation page Turk. Perhaps close this request and reopen with one request for Pakistani people, Bengali people and Sri Lankan Tamil people, and then seperate requests for the Turkish people and Indian people proposals. Ebonelm (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your opposition, and I think that your suggestion is wise. That does not mean that I'm not baffled that "Turks" does not redirect to Turkish people. "Turks" is used to mean people from Turkey in English. It is never used for "Turkic peoples". We go by English common usage, which clearly uses "Turks" exclusively for people from Turkey. I doubt most Anglophones are even aware of the large variety of Turkic groups. Regardless, in the case of "Indians", should "Indian people" also not be a redirect to the dab, then? There is no difference between "Indian people" and "Indians". They mean the same thing, except that one is shorter. If you are arguing that the people of India are not the primary topic for "Indian", we might as well rename this article "People of India". RGloucester — ☎ 22:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither point is true, actually. I see "Turks" all the time for various Turkic peoples of central Asia or eastern Europe. And while Native Americans are called "Indians", AFAIK they are never called "Indian people". Though we could easily place Hindians and Anatolian Turks as the primary topics of "Indians" and "Turks", with hat notes to dab pages. I don't have any opinion on that.
While we're on the topic, most Eurasian ethnic terms use the base name as a dab page for the people vs the language, as e.g. at Bengali. However, there are a few editors who have gotten into furious edit wars over American terms, insisting that the base name be the people. The effect seems to be that for "advanced" peoples, languages get equal billing (the French language is as important as the French people), but for "primitive" peoples, it's hardly worth making the distinction. Anyway, just a thought, since this proposal is based on consistency between articles. — kwami (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reference where "Turks" refers to anyone other than people from Turkey. Without added context, "Turks" alone always refers to people from Turkey. American Indians are called American Indians. They are never called "Indians" alone in a context other than the colloquial, or where an American context is extremely clear. They can also be called "American-Indian people". Regardless, if we ignore all this, both of these are clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPICs. RGloucester — ☎ 17:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "turks" is used in some situations to describe rowdy people, it's a racist use, but Young turks is pretty common. Montanabw(talk) 22:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ebonelm's suggestion. "Indians" and "Turks" should be kept as redirects to the respective disambiguation pages. Huon (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Indian people belongs to west bengal are also called as Bengalis. So, how will you distinguish between them? What about Étienne Dolet's oppose? He has also given right fact.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And why would we distinguish them? Being a Bengali by ethnicity (Bengali people [...] are the principal ethnic group to the region of Bengal, [...] between Bangladesh and India.) and an Indian by nationality (Indians are citizens of India, [...] The Indian nationality consists of many regional ethno-linguistic groups) is not mutually exclusive. No such user (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, coincidently this move coincides with a larger multi page RM the I have since made and which covers similar ground. However, I agree with Ebonelm in regard to "Turks" and would support Turks (Turkish people). This is on the basis that Turks are the most common reference to the group and I don't think that it should get into Wikipedia's remit to present content that is not faithful to realities. Turks is the natural designation and the parenthesis sensibly adds to content. GregKaye 14:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Mostly due to the substantial confusion with Native American people. The word "Indian" or "Indians" is appropriate as a dab. While @GregKaye: makes a valid point that "Indian" as used to describe Indigenous people of the Americas is generally discouraged today and is indeed offensive to many (highly offensive to some, not very offensive to others), the reality is that it is embedded into United States Law (see, e.g., Indian Child Welfare Act, etc.) While there are also movements to change some team names for the same reason ( notably [{Cleveland Indians]] ) the reality is that the word exists with this meaning. So it is not "myth" or "fallacy" - it IS the alleged confusion (or more likely propaganda) of Columbus, made 500 years ago, but it stuck for about 450 of those years. Even today, some people view "America Indian" as acceptable (see, e.g. American Indian Movement) It's going to be at least another 50 or so before it goes, and even then we will be dealing with the issue in historic documents. Montanabw(talk) 08:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC) (actually !voted several days ago, just realized I hadn't signed).[reply]
No confusion exists. American Indians are "American Indians", not "Indians". A hat note is already provided. RGloucester — ☎ 23:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, in the USA, we often clarify "East Asian Indian" from "American Indian." You apparently are from the UK, so maybe you are not aware of this. A totally genric google search makes the confusion obvious, as do the suggested links for refining the search. Both "Indian" and "Indians" need to be dab pages. I'm not going to go to the mat for the kazillion other articles in this RM, but I am on this one. Montanabw(talk) 00:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not exist in an American bubble. Outside of an American context, only "American Indian" is used. Even in an American context, Americans refer to people from India as "Indians". They do not say "East Asian Indian", given that India isn't even in "East Asia". RGloucester — ☎ 00:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They also don't say "American Indian". I have some sympathy for people from India here, but in the Americas (north and south), if one says "Indian", the listener will first assume American Indian. (see, e.g. Cleveland Indians and Native American mascot controversy) Maybe "south Asian" is a better way of saying it than "east Asian" or even "Asian" (given that India also is not "west Asia"); colloquially, I will acknowledge that folks in the USA are actually most apt to say "Indian from India" or "person from India" in our real world. I'm all for precision, but this one is one for a dab. No question about it, we have 320 million plus people here, which is fewer than the population of India, I agree, but enough to suggest a dab is a wise choice on this one. Montanabw(talk) 04:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"American Indian" is on the US census. Have you ever heard of the American Indian Movement? "American Indian" is the term. RGloucester — ☎ 05:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester, I live in a state with seven recognized Indian tribes, so I am familiar with the way the word is used. (and here people who are Native American outnumber people who are of Asian Indian ancestry). You simply fail to understand that the primary locations that "American Indian" is used in the USA are places such as academe where there is possible confusion with Asian Indians. Note Indian Reservation, and so on. Conversely, [Indian people Indian people] clearly links to India. I am not trying to claim that roughy 2 million Native Americans can trump over a billion people in India, I am only pointing out that "Indian" is a real word for two groups of people, even if one is due to a misnomer that is 500 years old. Montanabw(talk) 00:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, the present title is no good, and must be got rid of. What do you propose? "People of India"? "Bharat people"? What about "Indian people" links to "India", if "Indians" does not? If American Indians are just "Indians", and if they have "Indian reservations", clearly "Indian people" actually refers to American Indians? You just said that "Indian" is a word for two groups of people. If that's the case, it cannot clearly "link to India". You're talking in circles and making no sense. Please try. RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the move of "Indian people" to just "Indians" - which can refer to multiple entities, including two different racial groups, a nationality and (unfortunately) multiple sports teams. I can live with the current title, as any ambiguity there is only between two possible ethnic groups and the dab settles that. Much cleaner. Now cease your WP:BAITing and and insulting. You can disagree without being so very, very disagreeable. Montanabw(talk) 03:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can perhaps understand the opposition to "Turks" below, but what's the rationale for opposing "Pakistanis", which is not ambiguous? RGloucester — ☎ 20:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moves to Indians and Turks. Opposition to "Turks" is per Ebonelm. As for Indians, the reasons for the move appear to to boil down to three reasons, none of which are good. The first is that it is extremely rare for "Indian" to refer to American Indians unqualified... which might be true in Britain, which has much closer cultural ties to India than to Native American cultures, but it is not true everywhere. The second is that there are more people in one ethnic group than another ethnic group. Both of these seem like obvious examples of systemic bias to me, and I must note that "there are more people in X than in Y" is generally dismissed when the issue at hand is a UK thing vs a US thing. The third is that "Indians" shouldn't be used to describe cultures in the Americas, but this is an attempt to be proscriptive rather than descriptive, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be. I am Neutral on the remainder. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is very unclear. Do you mean that you oppose the present title, which is "Indian people"? If what you say is true, the present title is ambiguous, and should be changed. Why would you support a title that is clearly against your views on this matter? RGloucester — ☎ 18:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know, RGloucseter, you have a good point; People of India would be an even better title, making "Indian people" a dab page. Montanabw(talk) 02:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'd support such a move. India is one of the most diverse countries in world, so homogenising everyone as an "Indian" feels a bit queer anyway. RGloucester — ☎ 03:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Lots going on and the current RMs just muddy the waters. Suggest perhaps an RfC covering all people groups, to come up with an overall naming convention and to document specific exceptions, I think there will be some. Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support all except NO TURKS: turks is to mean many things. i support moves that nominator makes. i just come from belieze request. good on nominator but she is sometimes misguided. rest are support by sources, easy. as for the indians, why not call those indians red indians, and leave real indians as indians? makes clear. Togashi Yuuta (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't really understand the inclusion of British African-Caribbean people → British Caribbean people in the nomination. It doesn't fit the pattern of the other moves suggested (the equivalent move would be to British African-Caribbeans, surely), and no rationale for dropping the "African" prefix is provided. Could you elaborate, 115ash? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Please could those supporting these moves take a look at Portal:Biography which sets out the various characteristics by which people can be classified. One of these is nationalty and the convention to denote articles relating to those different nationality/ cultural grouping etc is to use the generic suffix 'people' in the same way as those concerning a language are suffixed by the word 'language'. The Category:People by nationality see here lists all of these so seeking to change the arbitrary selection here is falling foul of the policy set out via the Portal. Any change would need to be discussed and agreed there and not here which is only the talk page for Indian people.Tmol42 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Portals cannot "set policy". They have no authority whatsoever, nor are they any kind of policy or guideline. The standard is not to use "people". The standard is to only use people when "people" is required for disambiguation. In these case, it isn't, as with many other articles. Please see the myriad articles linked above that have always followed this convention. Your convention isn't a convention at all. Categories always use the "people" form, as the people form is beneficial for the organisation of categories. However, article titles have never used that form as a "convention". RGloucester — ☎ 15:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Belizean people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


New collage

[edit]

An excellent and chronological collage of some of the most influential Indians of all time, which includes all ethnic groups such as Bengali, Tamil and Telugu.

From left to right

  • FIRST row
    • Chanakya - the main advisor of greatest Indian emperors like Chandragupta, Bindusara, Ashoka and the pioneer of political science and economics in India
    • Chandragupta Maurya - founder of the Mauryan Empire and the first emperor to unify India into one state
    • Aryabhata - the most essential Hindu scientist
    • Guru Hargobind - sixth Sikh Guru who instituted the practice of maintaining armed legion of Sikh warrior-saints as protector of oppressed Hindus and Sikhs and declared wars against Muslim great rulers
    • Akbar the Great - third Mughal emperor, who nearly conquered the entire Indian Scontinent and formed a centralized society in the empire,founded Din-e-Illahi movement
    • Chand Bibi - Muslim woman warrior, who acted as the Regent of Bijapur, Regent of Ahmednagar Indian Muslim woman warrior.
    • Nur-ud-din Muhammad Salim - fourth Mughal Emperor, who is reagarded as one of the greatest Mughal Emperors by scholars and the fourth of the Grand Mughals in South Asian historiography
  • SECOND row
    • Meera - Hindu saint, devotee of Krishna and poet whose quotes are one of most essentials in Indian history and
    • Rani Durgavati - A Rajput queen who defended attacks by the Ghaznavids
    • Akbar II - penultimate Mughal emperor, who is considered to be a pensioner of Britain and he sent the Bengali King Ram Mohan Roy as an ambassador to Britain
    • Tipu Sultan - Tipu Sultan - scholar, poet and ruler of the Kingdom of Mysore, who deployed the rockets against advances of British forces and their allies in their 1792 and 1799 Siege of Srirangapatna and acknowledged considered a pioneer in the use of rocket artillery
    • Raja Ram Mohan Roy - Bengali religious leader and Indian ambassador for Britain ,who invented the therm "Hinduism" and introduced the funeral practice of Sati in which the widow was compelled to sacrifice herself on her husband’s funeral pyre
    • Mahatma Ghandi - the Founding Father of the modern State of India
    • Indira Ghandi - granddaughter of Mohandas Ghandi, third prime minister of India and prominent member of Indian National Congress Party
  • THIRD row, left to right:
    • Rabindranath Tagore - The first non-European to win a Noble and author of India and Bangladesh's national anthems
    • Swami Vivekananda - Famous Hindu monk, who introduced the Asian philosophies of Yoga and Vedanta to the Western world
    • C.V. Raman - The first South-Asian to win a Nobel Prize in science, who worked on the scattering of light and for the discovery of the Raman effect
    • Gurazada Apparao - writer, architect and poet of Andhra Pradesh, who wrote the first Telugu play
    • Satyajit Ray - one of the greatest filmmakers of the 20th century, who obtained several awards
    • Satyendra Nath Bose - the famous physicists who is best known for his work on quantum mechanics and he provided the foundation for Bose–Einstein statistics and the theory of the Bose–Einstein condensate
    • Amartya Sen Nobel Prize winner in Economic Sciences for his contributions to welfare economics and social choice theory and for his interest in the problems of society's poorest members
  • FOURTH row
    • Kalpana Chawla - first Asian woman and India-American person in space
    • Aishwarya Rai Bachchan - Miss World pageant of 1994 and one of the most notable
    • Shah Rukh Khan - one of the world's most popular and richest actors, who won various awards
    • Zakir Naik - scholar, public speaker, medical doctor, who is recognized to be one of the most influential Muslims of the 21st century
    • Sachin Tendulkar - one of the greatest batsman in the history of cricket as well as the greatest Indian sportsman ever
    • Asha Bhosle - one of the most recorded singers in the history
    • Mukesh Ambani - a businessman, recognized as one of the wealthiest persons in the world, who resides in the world's most expensive residential property

--115ash→(☏) 09:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the new Collage

[edit]

Some rather unnotable people have been included in the latest collage in the article. In particular, Zakir Naik and Gurbax Singh Malhi do not belong to any list of the "most influential Indians of all time". --Shitikanth (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the image by replacing Zakir Naik and Gurbax Singh by A. P. J. Abdul Kalam and Viswanathan Anand. -Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. The latest montage is about some of the notable Indians, but not about "the most influential Indians of all time". Nonetheless, despite Diffeomorphicvoodoo's updated montage, you've forget to adjust their names on the infobox. If someone still disagrees with Dr Zakir Naik, Gurbax Singh Malhi and others, feel free to leave a comment here. Abul Kalam and Viswanathan Anand would be unacceptable. Regards.--115ash→(☏) 08:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New collage change

[edit]

|image = File:Greatest Indians.jpg Edited the new collage and changed Zakir Naik's image to Sardar Patel. Also changed the link under notable indians (Zakir Naik to Sardar Patel). Serenity18 (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrange of new collage

[edit]

File:Indian People Greatest.jpg rearranged to new collage to fit the time period the rows seemed to set. Edited image Greatest Indians II.jpg and rearranged some pictures. Added Abdul Kalam to the picture as well.Rearranged links in Notable Indians to reflect the changesSerenity18 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unprofessional and low quality

[edit]

There is no need for such huge collage, it does not look professional to me. We need to add proper more detailed things from literature to art to architecture etc

Take some clues from these pages, Greek people and Chinese people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.194.49 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Indian people

[edit]

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 Indian people'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 "Kumar":

  • From Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia: Singh, Ashok Kumar (2007). Science & Technology For Upsc. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. p. 595. ISBN 978-0-07-065548-5.
  • From Rape in India: Kumar, Radha (1993). The History of Doing: An Account of Women's Rights and Feminism in India. Zubaan. p. 128. ISBN 978-8185107769.

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. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shivaji, B. R Ambedkar, Bal Gangadhar Tilak , Lata Mangeshkar

[edit]

I think Shivaji, B. R Ambedkar, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lata Mangeshkar should be included in the images.

Shivaji - Founder of Maratha Empire, B. R Ambedkar - Social reformer, Principal architect of the Constitution of India. Bal Gangadhar Tilak - First leader first leader of the Indian Independence Movement, the Father of the Indian unrest. Lata Mangeshkar - The greatest singer ever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewdd1 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ages ago we had a consensus at WT:INB to exclude all such image collages. Hence removed all images. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Collage

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.72.203 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 November 2015‎

So what about this? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please check French people, Germans, Italian people or Spaniards. Collage is the best way to do it. --♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 13:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Am asking what about this? Why is this posted here? Is someone proposing this? Why the change? Whats the change? Why these people only? We need rationales for whatever is happening here....
If we are changing the images lets get consensus of editors on who should be included. Dont simply spam Wikimedia Commons by uploading all iterations. This collage has many problems btw. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely rubbish! Why have notable religious leaders been labelled? Where is Chanakya? Where is Ram Mohan Roy?--78.145.16.86 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed the montage from the infobox in any case, per the consensus reached at WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy

Hello, regarding the Philosophy on Indian people page, see the Germans, Italians and French people page for example has section dedicated to philosophy, covers all importance aspects that shaped their respective culture. We should add it, philosophy has been important part of Indian civilization. We should also furtherer add information about Indian political philosophy in 20th century such as Gandhian socialism, Practical idealism, Integral humanism (India), Nehruism, Trusteeship (Gandhism) it will be simple information which covers all basics. 117.192.198.59 (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind that this is a page on "Indian people," not Indian history, the only philosophy that is worth mentioning is the one that is still alive. To my mind Vedanta is the only one that fits the bill. And, that can be very well covered under Religion. As for political philosophies that you mention, their respective pages are yet in despicable state. How about developing those pages first before we can hope to summarise them here? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But, Philosophy that we have today has developed over thousands of years, we need to have information on it's development as well as it's influence on indian society. I don't see how only Vedanta fits the bill since it's part of Astika school of philosophy while many nastika school of philosophy like Sramanic movement has been equally important in shaping Indian philosophical thought. We should consider it, should be simple but informative. Also, regarding political philosophy, i agree those pages need a lot of work but until they are fixed, we can add names of important philosophers of 20th and 21st century. 117.192.198.59 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of desi?

Many of my Indian friends refer to themselves as Desis, yet I see no mention of it under the ethnonym section or the entire article as a matter of fact. Should this be included in some way, alongside Bharata? Or is it too broad of a term since it applies to South Asia in general, including Pakistan and Bangladesh and such? Word dewd544 (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in Good faith – Armenian DNA

@Materialscientist: My edits were in good faith, there is no such thing as "Armenian DNA" in any reliable journal genetic study (nature, pnas, oxford 2014-16 study) related to South Asians, Please see main article for Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia for reliable references and sources. 117.192.212.238 (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Please take note of vandalism by User:Polyenetian on this page, I have mentioned the problem above. He also seems to be disruptive editing on various pages as well. Thank you. 117.192.212.238 (talk)

off-topic discussion
You are obviously lying and denying facts now, this is because your are unfortunately incapable of rationalising or understand simple data information, you have also failed to try to even debunk my other statement on the fact that 15% of indian castes have halogroup u. Indians to begin with aren't even a race, they are an artificial nation created by the british raj s so obviously you are going to see major differences in their genetics. I have indicated well researched evidence to support my statements, yet you are trying to discredit and debunk what the genetic researches said without even showing any evidence to support your absurd lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyenetian (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: Please take a note of User:Polyenetian threats. I'm sure you know more about genetics/admixtures and recent Lazaridis 2016 study of South Asians. 117.192.212.238 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out User:Polyenetian added this in Haryana page regrading 'artoicites against Hindus' by Timur, the given source as "page 13" in google books does not mention it. He added the same in Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent which was also pointed out and reverted by Mod User:RegentsPark. 117.192.212.238 (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Polyenetian "they are an artificial nation created by the british rajs" - Very immature of you. Indian people lead united "Quit India" movement for a reason, to create an Independent republic of India. It was not called "Quit Bengal/Maratha/Punjab/Bihar etc", I advise you to educate yourself on this topic. 117.192.212.238 (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyenetian: Please desist from personal attacks even if they are to unregistered users. They cannot be treated any differently from registered users.

You say "Indians aren't even a race". Quite correct. But why is that an issue? Who claimed that they were a race? You say "they are an artificial nation created by the british raj". That seems to be your POV. So I won't bother contesting it. But once again, what does this have to do with anything?

The IP objected to your mention of the "Armenian DNA". There is no such thing in reliable sources according to him. I didn't see your response to that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be POV pushing for adding mtdna U and also doesn't seem to know what auDNA, aDNA or admixtures are, going by his "Armenian DNA 1% in Sindhis" edit. The section has been very simplified for basic understanding of admixture between two groups, South Eurasians and West Eurasians, main article linked above explains it much better, instead of copy-pasting random mtdna U as he did. 117.192.212.238 (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:117.192.212.238 Indians aren't a race, which part of this don't you undertsand? You aren't even smart enough to understand that india was never even united in history for you to consider your country an ancient civilization, what are you a punjabi, sindhi, gujarati, or bengali? You are a nation of hundreds of ethnic groups forced together under your british colonial masters, where I come form back in the 50s when my government wanted to recognise ethnic tamils as indians living in my country, the tamils immediately protested against this nonsense, refused to call themselves 'indians' and they even called it the most absurd thing they have ever heard, before the creation of the british raj there are no historic records which prove that you indians were ever unified people and never in historic material suggests that you indians saw yourself as a race. Being a citizen of india you are obviously brianwashed by the indian government to legitimize their rule through the education system, winston churchill and lee kuan yew have even called india out what it is, an artifical state created by the british. India is just a concept. The only reason why your artificial state didn't fall apart and continue existing into the 21st century is because of the majority of you are at least partially united against the muslims as you have the same religion, hinduism.

And timur did , when he entered haryana his army exterminated every hindus en masse, the slaughter was incredible, they killed hindu men, women and children without pity. By the time timur was exhausted from killing all the hindu indians and went back to the steepes, all he left in haryana was a massive cemetery for the millions of hindu skulls killed by timur and gang and completely destroyed cities, towns and villages, every single structure was destroyed by him in haryana. Oddly, you should know what the muslim conquests did to your own people:

Page 13 : https://archive.org/stream/HistoryOfTheSikhsVol.ITheSikhGurus1469-1708_34/HistoryOfTheSikhsVol.ITheSikhGurus1469-1708_djvu.txt

"Timur, the robber ruler of Central Asia, invaded India 70 years before Nanak was born. He crossed river Indus at Attock in Septem- ber, 1398. He marched along the western bank of Jehlam river and crossed Chenab near Multan which was reduced to ruins. He turned north-east and laid waste the towns of Dipalpur and Pakpattan. At Bhatner, Sirsa, Fatahabad and Hisar no Hindu house was left stand- ing. Men were massacred or taken prisoners. After using women for grinding, cooking and raping most of them were beheaded in the morning before marching. The towns of Samana, Kaithal and Panipat went all to smash. At Loni near Delhi about one lakh Hindu men and women of Haryana kept as prisoners were put to death, and a vast area flowed with their blood. Timur himself admitted that every soldier in his army killed from 50 to 100 Hindu men, women and children in Haryana. Passing through Meerut, Muzzaffarnagar, Hardwar, Saharanpur, and causing wholesale destruction of human beings, cattle, crops and houses, he fell upon' Jagadhri and completely destroyed it. Jawalamukhi and Kangra were razed to the ground, while Jammu was thoroughly sacked and burnt. He crossed river Indus in March, 1399. 1" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyenetian (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyenetian: No one on here said Indians are a "race". I'm not going to bother with rest of your rant. I'll leave citations regrading Timur conquests to @Kautilya3: and Mod User:RegentsPark to decide. 117.192.215.121 (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Indian people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritius

Mauritius is the only country outside India and Nepal where there is a majority of people of Indian Origin. Yet, it is not mentioned in this article ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.136.239.196 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Indian people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is the title

There's no such thing as "Indian people", only Indians. The rest of the world calls Indians as Indians. The stupid US Americans didn't know the correct word doesn't mean the world should accommodate, unless the Wikipedia is US American Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.68.112.170 (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Indian. Here, they are disambiguated. First check it out that, even the earliest "Americans" were called "Indians" by Spanish or british or any other foreign people that firstly visited America. And, they were called "Native Americans". (Even that, I [some-what] support your view.) Utkarsh555 (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How there is Indian Diaspora in Pakistan?

Howcome there is such a large indian diaspira in pakistan as given in factfile. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


There are. Please see: Muhajir people. They migrated from what is now India (and what was then also India) to Pakistan. Waqqashanafi (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology: Vedic/Mahabharata "Bharat" or Jain Bharata?

@Dharmadhyaksha: - @Kautilya3: : Can you guys to go through this and conform, is there any consensus on from which text the name derives from?

User @Rizhwickh: has been replacing previous sources about Vedic/Kuru Dynasty with Jain Bharata Chakravartin instead, suggesting it was not derived from Vedic/Mahabaratha/Kuru Dynasty, he has been pushing this edit for a while replacing previous one. He has also removed link to main article Names of India which covers this topic in detail.

Modern India historians suggest it's derived from Vedic and Kuru Dynasty as it's where earliest mention of Bharata occurs in context of warring tribes.

"In their own earlier works, however, Indians referred to their land as Bharata, which may have been of their greatest ancient warrior or tribal chief, India's longer epic of called Mahabharata "Great Bharata" and is the story of warring tribal cousins, whose struggle for power on the plains of Delhi. Modern India's Republic officially adopted Bharat as it's alternate name, when the Constitution of India was enacted on January 26, 1950."- An Introduction to India By Stanley A. Wolpert

Currently, I have added both sources, but really needs to be simplified as the page is already too cluttered. Ilber8000 (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wolpert info is good. I suggest we get rid of all mythologies and use only scholarly sources. After all, this is a page on Indian people, not the name. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last smartha vicharam witness still lives in Kerala

The Last Smartha Vicharam

The last smarthavicharam held in Kerala was in 1925.This old custom in namboodiri family was happened at Atteri Moothedath Mana, Thaikkattusseri in Thrissur District, Kerala. There were only two victims. One Devasena Antherjanam daughter of Ghrini Namboodiri and his brother Madhavan Namboodiri.

After the excommunication Devasena married from a Namboodiri family, namely Palathole mana, This Namboodiri youth was also a member of one of the expelled families of Kuryedathu thathri incident. They settled at Palapuram in Palakkad District.

Madhavan Namboodiri also left his family and settled at Palappuram. He married a warasiar and given birth of two children.

The suspense is that, son of Madhavan Namboodiri is still living in a place called Perumbillisseri at Thrissur District. He is now in his 99. Narayanan Namboodiri son of Madhavan Namboodiri had laid pindam and bali for his living father. He is the only living witness of this pragmatic custom ones prevailed in Namboodiri's society in Kerala. Atterimoothedam (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Pakistan from "Regions with significant populations" section

While it is true that 2 million people in Pakistan were born in India, it should be noted that these folks were born before the Partition, the event which led to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of India. This means that after they migrated to Pakistan, they claimed the Pakistani identity and no longer identified with the current Republic of India. In fact, Indian migrants to Pakistan are considered a distinct ethnic group, a group called "Muhajirs". They are explicitly known as Pakistanis, not Indians. Therefore, they should not be considered Indians as per this article.

New Zealand

Information is outdated. There are 250,000-350,000 New Zealanders of Indian descent, not 155,000. --222.154.95.233 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove flags

In the infobox, I am in favour of removing flag-icons of the nations, as per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG.

Utkarsh555 (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead! –Austronesier (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier Done!🙂👍 Utkarsh555 (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda

Why are these East African countries mentioned when they have the largest Indian population in the region and second in Africa after South Africa 196.249.97.112 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated

the population of indians in the usa is now at 4.5 million, surpassing the uae, and this article still uses data from a census from 2011?? no one feels like fixing it?? bruh Vktrvk (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced synonym at start of article itself

"Bharatiya people" is not an English language synonym for citizens and nationals of India. The closest relation is the term "Bharatiya" being a Hindi language synonym for India therefore the unsourced "Bharatiya people" should be removed. Even a quick Google search doesn't throw up any credible results. 112.196.153.237 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakenly says 'Chinese' instead of 'Indian'

On the map of Indian ancestry, the subtitle says "Countries with a significant population with Chinese ancestry." this seems to be an error, Chinese should be replaced with Indian. Ziarric (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI

Regions with significant populations aka the diaspora section contains all people of Indian origin, not just those that are citizens of India. Alexysun (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_people