This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Indonesia and
Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the
Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the
importance scale.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Isabelroche19.
Answer: Yes! Inhabitant of the East Indies are known as Indians.
The First Europeans in the Spice Indies
The "Portuguese" were the "first" Europeans to set sail in the "East Indies", beginning in "1497"(late 15th century), who arrived in India, Sri Lanka and East Timor between 1500-1520, then followed by the "Spanish" in the early 16th century in "1521" who founded the Philippine Archipelago.
The Dutch Explorers arrived 74 years later in "1595", who began exploring the land of what is now Indonesia.
Nope. Indies was a collective term for the Asia-Pacific region lying outside the
Oriental sphere. After the Dutch colonised Indonesia (see
Dutch East Indies), the term Indies was used specifically used for this region so as to differentiate from
British India.
West Indies is called so because early European settlers actually thought that it was Indies. American Indian naming controversy!! Rings bells?? --
128.210.59.3104:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
So close! You got the nameing thing right, but you got the settlers thing wrong. Columbus knew where he was going. He knew that when he sailed across the Atlantic that he would end up in America. HE HAD A MAP! That map already showed the location of Puerto Rico and the surrounding islands! He called the people he found there "en dios". He wrote in his journal that they people reminded him of the descriptions of Adam and Eve in Genesis and how Adam was created in God's likeness. Over time the words were combined and basterdized into Indians. India wasn't even called "India" yet, and the term "Indies" didn't become popular until the Dutch created the East Indies Trading Company. Heck! the Europeans didn't even sail to the Indies until after Colombus "discovered" America.
Itzacho (
talk)
07:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Heck! and heck again! A large number of Europeans had walked to India in a bunch and walked back again before the time of Christ. And they knew perfectly well it was there to visit and to conquer. Glance at
Alexander the Great. And the name India and Indies comes from the (Indian) river,
Indus.
Eddaido (
talk)
02:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
History
I would strongly contend that:
"The New World was initially thought to be the easternmost part of the Indies by explorer Christopher Columbus, who had grossly underestimated the westerly distance from Europe to Asia. Later, to avoid confusion, the New World came to be called the "West Indies", whilst the original Indies came to be called the "East Indies"."
Christopher Columbus knew where he was going. He had maps that showed the location of the islands that he was setting out to explore before he left Lisban! The maps are held in the cartography libraries in Portugal. If you want to see replications just take a look in the book, "1421: The Year China Discovered America", by Gavin Menzies. Menzies is a retired Royal Navy submarine commander and took the maps that he found, and by adjusting the longitude to make up the cartography errors, and layed out solid evidence that Christopher Columbus had in his possession maps that showed the land that he was to "discover".
Itzacho (
talk)
07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge discussion
Indianized kingdom,
Greater India,
Undivided India,
Indian subcontinent and
Indies - little difference in content, same maps and graphic used over and over, not much accessibility to the information spread over an array of hotchpotch. The only argument I can see against a merger is chauvinism. Yes, India was great and still is great. But, we don't need fifty different entries to prove that greatness, much less the same point that India has/had influence over a wide part of the world and was/is known to have so. *Sigh*.
Aditya(
talk •
contribs)02:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Hahahhahaha! That was good, real good. I see distinct possibilities that the Indian Subcontinet can very well be merged into South Asia. They represent the same geographical reality. That would help us to keep the landmass intact without not the indo-centric POV. The rest may go into an article on Indian influence and historical expanse (two sides of the same coin), thus reducing redundancy and chauvinism. BTW, I see the same repetitive structure in China-related articles. Unfortunately I know too little of China to make a substantial comment there.
Aditya(
talk •
contribs)06:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)reply
we need to centralize this discussion. This article isn't about "Undivided India" so much as about listing all these terms. it would be best to {{move}} this article to
India (and the present
India to
Republic of India) and make it a
summary discussion of all these terms. It's just too damn confused as it is now.
dab(𒁳)08:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Moving
India to the
Republic of India is like changing the
Constitution of India -
[2]. It also looks really bizarre and strange that the contents of
Undivided India have been changed to look really stupid from its original meaning as enshrined in a legal enactment! However, as this free encyclopedia prides itself on having free flow style contents based on consensus, I don't mind if consensus is to say that India emerged when Pakistan was divided into Pakistan and India. I am not bitter, I am visualizing the possible contents of this encyclopedia which the founders fondly planned to be around for next 100 years. --
Bhadani (
talk)
18:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)reply
There is a lot of discussion visible on the talk pages of all of the merger candidates. And, most of the comments against merger seem to hang on to subtleties and nuances (i.e. Greater India is bigger than Undivided India or Indian Subcontinent as a term has been in coinage for long). Unfortunately not one of the against-merger comments said a single thing about the usefulness of having a dozen different articles repeating mostly the same stuff (in copy, ref and graphics) to assert the greatness of India. And, while there are comments saying the original intention of these articles were not this, not one edit has been made to make them conform to the intentions. Therefore I propose being bold and merging them all (almost all, at least) and that pretty quick.
Aditya(
talk •
contribs)04:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I know
Indian subcontinent is a significant landmass, and it is linked from
subcontinent. But... (1) Indian subcontinent =
South Asia, and a sencond article on the same landmass is adding no extra value; and, (2) that link from subcontinent can be addressed in many ways, most notably a redirect and a line or two on the South Asia page describing it's alternative name. This should solve Transhumanist's problem.
Aditya(
talk •
contribs)07:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)reply
allow me to add my semi-informed opinion. :-) I think the merge as presented is too broad. it seems to me that two or three smaller mergers would be more in order: Indian subcontinent with south asia (noting both the cultural and geographic qualities); Greater India, Undivided India, and Indies, since all three seem to focus on a kind of Indian cultural influence sphere, ... . with, of course, appropriate redirects as Aditya proposed.--
Ludwigs2 (
talk)
01:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Indian subcontinent should redirect to
South Asia probably (in any case it's different from East Indies or Indies). Merging with South Asia should be dealt with in a separate discussion.
Greater India is the same as the (Eastern) Indies, so this one yes: merge
OpposeIndianized kingdom is an historical article about a specific period of history, and ought to be expanded, not merged.
Greater India and
Undivided India are cultural terms, and
Indian subcontinent is or ought to be a geographical article, with room for attention to the geological evolution of the subcontinent.
South Asia is more of a cultural concept that is rather larger than, and in any case distinguishable from the subcontinent. I would propose that
Greater India and
Undivided India be merged into
South Asia, not into
Indian subcontinent, nor into
Indies.
Indies probably ought to be edited into a disambiguation article, and most of its content merged to
East Indies, which ought not redirect back to
Indies, which is also used to refer to the
Caribbean. I'm mostly going on record here in favor of keeping
Indian subcontinent, the geographical/geological term, clearly distinguished from the cultural articles being considered here. --
arkuat(talk)06:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose I'm not against some reorganization but think that the current proposal is too broad. Also agree with Transhumanist that
Indian subcontinent is a recognizable geographic entity that is different from
South Asia. Even though the latter corresponds (roughly) to the former, renaming the geographical entity would be flirting dangerously with
WP:OP.--
Regents Park (
sink with the skaters)
21:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)reply
South Asia is more a geopolitical thing while Indian Subcontinent is more a geographical thing. I think it a bit more than a stretch to argue that the term Indian Subcontinent is
WP:OR. You could argue that the use of Indian in Indian Subcontinent is exclusionary (in that it excludes Bangladesh and other countries on the, um, subcontinent) and that wouldn't be unreasonable, but I don't see where your
WP:OR accusation is coming from. Are you suggesting that the term Indian Subcontinent has no respectability outside wikipedia? --
Regents Park (
sink with the skaters)
14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, that happens. Our believe in things get so embedded that we often fail to see to see the OR. I was referring to that difference you found between South Asia and the Indian Subcontinet (geopolitical and geographical). Apart from this piece of information they look like pretty much the same thing. Can you please, substantiate your claim that "South Asia is more a geopolitical thing while Indian Subcontinent is more a geographical thing"? If we can do that much, then I think there would be little reason to believe that there was OR involved here.
Aditya(
talk •
contribs)17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I guess we'll need access to a dictionary of geographical terms (I'm traveling, so that'll have to wait till August), but a quick search pulls up Title: Gondwana to Asia: Plate tectonics, paleogeography and the biological connectivity of the Indian sub-continent from the Middle Jurassic through latest Eocene (166-35 Ma) Author: Jason R Ali, Jonathan C Aitchison, Citation: Earth - Science Reviews Jun 2008 88(3/4) 145, Year: 2008. The publication abstract makes no mention of South Asia. I know that one swallow does not necessarily a summer make but, apparently, these authors of an article in a well-respected journal saw no reason to mention South Asia when discussing the movement of the plate. --
Regents Park (
sink with the skaters)
17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Aditya,
Indian subcontinent refers, in part, to a big chunk of continental crust that has recently (in geological terms) slammed into Asia and become part of
South Asia.
South Asia doesn't really need to talk so much about the geology, but
Indian subcontinent does. The articles ought not be merged; if they are merged, the geological discussion will have to be moved to some less adequate location on en.wikipedia, like
plate tectonics, which will become too long if it must accept many such excluded texts. --
arkuat(talk)13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The subcontinent is not the same thing as the
Indian plate; it is the geographical union of all the countries that (substantially) lie on the India Plate, and it therefore includes all of Pakistan. Western Baluchistan does not lie on the Indian plate, but it does lie on the subcontinent, similarly, the Mustang region of Nepal lies on the Tibetan plateau, and therefore not on the India plate, but it does lie on the subcontinent. The definition of "subcontinent," according to the Oxford English Dictionary (1989 edition), "A land mass of great extent, but smaller than those generally called continents; a large section of a continent having a certain geographical or political independence; spec. applied formerly to South Africa, and more recently to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka." Note geographical or political. As citations of usage, the OED gives: "1971 R. RUSSELL in Aziz Ahmad's Shore & Wave 'The novel in Urdu, as in all the modern languages of the South Asian sub-continent, is of very recent growth.' 1972 Times of India 'Nov. 11/4 Mr. Azad outlined his Government's views on the political problems of the sub-continent' 1978 L. HEREN Growing up on The Times v. 175 'Many Indians refused to accept the partition of the sub-continent.'" In other words, the term "South Asian subcontinent" or "Indian subcontinent" is primarily a geographical, but not entirely a geographical term, and it is not identical to the Indian (techtonic) plate.
Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
This really needs a fresh start. I'm trying to get a comprehensive view here. In short, there are way too many articles, most of them highly unsubstantiated, repeating the same thing. If the need to have a lot of redundant articles is not too great, most can be reorganized into one or two articles. That would surely be more useful. Right? Wrong? What?
Aditya(
talk •
contribs)15:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Is it so necessary to keep so many articles that don't have their scopes defined enough to warrant independent entries? What purpose are they serving? Spreading confusion? Or, establishing India on the Wikipedia?
I'm pleased that the merge tags have mostly been removed, but still somewhat puzzled that
Indies is not yet a disambig page. If this is the consensus decision of Wikipedia editors, then we need to look at
articles that link to 'Indies' and start changing all those
Indies links that intend
West Indies to be in the form of
Indies. Frankly, I think making
Indies a disambig page and moving the current
Indies article to
East Indies would be a lot less work, but please, let's get started on one or the other project. --
arkuat(talk)07:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I just noticed this page and discussion, after clicking on the
East Indies link in the
East India Company page. I too am puzzled that "East Indies" is redirected to "Indies." I entirely agree with Arkuat that the latter page should be a disambiguation page. The term "Indies" was used in the 15th and 16th centuries for (what later became) both the East and the West Indies (i.e. the term was used as a time when the two were not thought to be distinct).
As for the other pages discussed above,
Greater India has a clearly delineated set of cultural, historical, and geological meanings, all but one of which are archaic, and all are defined on that page.
I don't know too much about
Indianized kingdom, but it seems to have a clear enough current cultural-historical meaning; the page should be developed more. I have already removed portions of the
Greater India page that are more appropriate to the latter page.
Seems reasonable. Indies could refer to either the East or the West Indies so the disamb and rename proposal is a necessary one. (Though, if I may say so, this article is a complete mess.) --
Regents Park (
sink with my stocks)
11:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, I can agree to all that. But, a merge isn't a delete, and a merge can and does happen on the merit of the article.
So far, from what I see,
Indian subcontinent fails very much to establish a geographical context and remains essentially a variant of the
South Asia article.
Undivided India looks like fodder for an AfD, as it fails completely to establish its existence as a concept (may be it does, but the burden of evidence lies on the editors who add any material). The
British Raj was never undivided India, as it didn't include a lot many
princely states that was integrated into
Republic of India.
Definately agree that "Indies" should be a DAB. Does anybody even use the terms "Indies", "East Indies", or "West Indies" anymore? They are historical constructs related to the spheres of influence of various European trading companies, and not related the modern concepts like Greater India.
4.243.41.58 (
talk)
23:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Remove the redundant from Indian Subcontinet article, then
If you guys are sure Indian Subcontinent is a geographical thing, then why don't we remove the non-geographical stuff from the article to South Asia or India (let's ignore the geopolitical OR for now). If it keeps closely corresponding the South Asia article, it should be merged into that article, as South Asia seems to be a term in wider usage at that. If it needs a separate existence then it should have it by being separate, as opposed to being similar to the South Asia article. An,d we should also remove this explicitly geographical region from the
navbox for politically divided regions. Can we do that?
Aditya(
talk •
contribs)15:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, I completely agree with you that this ought to be done. I'm principally opposed to the merge proposal because we'll just have to do this as a split after the merge. We should move most of the cultural material in
Indian subcontinent to
South Asia, and most of the geo material in
South Asia to "see
Indian subcontinent for further info". I'm opposed to the merge for other reasons that need not be repeated here, but at the very least, we should exclude
Indian subcontinent from the merge, perhaps putting an appropriate
WP:split tag on it. --
arkuat(talk)03:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
It's true that
Indian subcontinent, as the article has stood for many months now, includes a great deal of cultural and political material that I think ought to be removed from the article (as such material already stands in
South Asia and other articles). Although for decades people have used the phrase "Indian subcontinent" as a shorthand for what we now refer to as
South Asia, the phrase nowadays is first and foremost a geological concept (the
Indian subcontinent is easily distinguished from the
Indian plate, which contains it but is not identical with it) and secondarily a physical-geographical (not a cultural-geographical or political-geographical) concept. I remain scandalized that so many links to
Indies in so many historical articles on the en.wikipedia link to the article we are supposed to be discussing on this talk page (which ought to be moved to
East Indies) when they plainly intend to refer to the Caribbean. --
arkuat(talk)08:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)reply
This article shows signs of needing a complete re-write - inadequate referencing and confusing in whether it is aligned to India, to the alledged indies or the east indies - as it stands it is a mess.
I would recommend that most of the article be gutted - and the three very different subjects be considered as separate articles rather than stay here - Indies
early exploration confusion about India and the 'west'/'east' indies issue be either subsumed into other article - or clearly identified separately in the article.
East Indies - go to the current east indies stub - and have a specific title to work from (Indies is too ambiguous in my opinion to stay as is) - and work in that context
Indian cultural imperialism - 'greater india' stuff - own separate article
As it stands with no refs/cites to mention (since when was Britannica a valid ref in Wikipedia? ) and potentially POV assertions within the article as it stands - it needs work
SatuSuro03:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I dont understand who decides the sphere?
How come the Indian cultural sphere ends with Pakistan? Why isnt Afghanistan ilncluded? Or Iran? I mean it goes all the way to Indonesia on the East and only Pakistan on the West then?
71.105.87.54 (
talk)
06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)reply
An 1801 map of the East Indies, prepared by
John Cary for his New Universal Atlas, depicting all of
Southeast Asia. In a restricted sense, the term East Indies refers to the area's islands, though it has also been used to include certain land-locked areas (mostly those under
Indian cultural influence). European powers, beginning with the Portuguese,
explored and colonized these regions in the late 15th century; the East Indies were not
decolonized until the 20th century.Map:
John Cary
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: Moved to East Indies to reflect current content of article and per Common Name, Indies should be converted into concept DAB as recommended below
Mike Cline (
talk)
14:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Indies →
East Indies – Much more common and less confusing name for this article. East Indies is the current name, whereas Indies is an obsolete historical version from before the popularisation of the term West Indies. Note that almost all sentences in this article describing the topic use the term East Indies instead of just Indies.
Oncenawhile (
talk) 22:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk)
05:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The article has no clear focus, but it is a term that was used historically, hence there is value keeping it. It may remain best focussed on the current name, thus including all the regions once described under this name, including the Indian subcontinent, and even including Ethiopia. The 'East Indies' as generally understood, i.e. broadly modern southeast Asia might then be clearly defined subtopic within the article, or a separate article.
Imc (
talk)
11:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)reply
There does seem to be a problem here. The article is, for the most part, about the East Indies and not the term "Indies". All of the article's source also use "East Indies". But, due to the title Indies, the article is trying to be two things at once. Either
East Indies should direct to
Maritime Southeast Asia (with East Indies content moved there) and this article remain at Indies. Or, as the nominator suggests, this article should be moved to
East Indies. If warranted, a new
conceptdab page could be created to explain the various iterations of that term and direct readers to relevant articles. —
AjaxSmack19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Support renaming this article to
East Indies and making a DAB page out of
Indies (i.e.
Indies (disambiguation) →
Indies). The use of Indies to refer to South(east) Asia essentially became obsolete after the West Indies came into play. It is silly that the more popular East Indies redirects to an outdated form, while the article is pretty much entirely about the East Indies. This is basically a case of
WP:COMMONNAME. -
HyperGaruda (
talk)
10:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.