Talk:Indies: Difference between revisions
Aditya Kabir (talk | contribs) →Merge discussion: new section |
→Merge discussion: More and deep *Sigh* |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
[[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*. <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">[[User:Aditya Kabir|Aditya]]</font><sup>([[User talk:Aditya Kabir|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aditya Kabir|contribs]])</sup> 02:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
[[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*. <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">[[User:Aditya Kabir|Aditya]]</font><sup>([[User talk:Aditya Kabir|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aditya Kabir|contribs]])</sup> 02:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:More and deep *Sigh*. I am confining my comments, for the time being to, the [[Indian Subcontinent]] - the page is about a geographical reality, and it can not be eliminated simiply because the landmass contains more than one [[Sovereignty|sovereign]] [[state]]s. --[[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]] ([[User_talk:Bhadani|talk]]) 17:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:19, 13 April 2008
![]() | Indonesia Redirect‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | India Redirect‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | Tambayan Philippines Redirect‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
if i understand things correctly, the east indies were once known simply as the indies.
so does this mean that east indians were known simply as indians?
Gringo300 08:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- 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.
Need better map
Need to get a better map....the one shown is stated as showing the indies, but based on the definition of indies, it doesn't !
- im not sure about that definition, i didnt think that the Indies included India (strange as that sounds) -- Astrokey44|talk 15:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- The definition specifically excludes western New Guinea, which is presumably correct, but the map includes it. Nurg 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
India??
I always thought the East Indies were just the islands of Indonesia - its also what it says in the britannica [1]. "Indies" by itself may also be referring to the West Indies (Caribbean) -- Astrokey44|talk 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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?? --128.210.59.31 04:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
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)
- More and deep *Sigh*. I am confining my comments, for the time being to, the Indian Subcontinent - the page is about a geographical reality, and it can not be eliminated simiply because the landmass contains more than one sovereign states. --Bhadani (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect-Class Indonesia articles
- Mid-importance Indonesia articles
- WikiProject Indonesia articles
- Redirect-Class India articles
- NA-importance India articles
- Redirect-Class India articles of NA-importance
- WikiProject India articles
- Redirect-Class Philippine-related articles
- Low-importance Philippine-related articles
- WikiProject Philippines articles