Talk:Desi

Desi means that person is related to a particular country.for ex. An Indian person is'desi/deshi'(native)for his own country but he is 'videsi/videshi'(foreigner)for all other countries.An American is desi in America.

Desi, what does it simply mean? Which countries does it include?

Simply the term "Desi" comes from Indo-Aryan Sanskrit meaning "land". Before editing the page and discriminating each other, consider the fact that how many countries in South Asia uses this term "Desi". Not just people from India, but from Sri Lanka Pakistan, Bangladesh and Maldives uses this term.

Who uses this term "Desi"? Every country that speaks languages that belongs to Indo-aryan/Sanskrit. That includes languages such as Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Sinhalese, Bengali, Divehi and Marathi.

You can see full list of languages in here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages

So any country that speaks the languages can use the term Desi. See the list below, every language below have their own way of saying the same exact term "Desi", pronounced the same EXACT way! Assamese: দেশী, Bengali: দেশি, Gujarati: દેશી, Hindi: देसी, Kannada: ದೇಶಿ , Malayalam: ദേശി, Marathi: देशी, Sinhalese: දේශිය, Odia: ଦେଶୀ, Punjabi: ਦੇਸੀ / دیسی, Tamil: தேசி, Telugu: దేశీయుడు-desiyudu not as commonly used as Bharatyeeudu, Urdu: دیسی‎, Malay: desa, Sindhi: ديسي‎

Stop editing this post over whatever the hating propaganda you're trying to promote! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesiKindInMahMind (talk • contribs) 04:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment Do you know that Desi and it's variants translate to "local" or "native" and has nothing to do with South Asia? "Desi" is a Western, specifically American construct not a South Asian construct. Can you look at the sources and read them please, without deleting them and thinking no one has noticed? This is the third time I have told you do this, how long is it going to take for you to actually read them? No one is trying to discriminate anyone, why are you posting such accusations? (121.220.96.223 (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC))

Please stop going back and forth with this! It was good enough when it said desi countries often include Bhutan, Maldives, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka! As a Sri Lankan, I indeed consider myself desi considering we have roots in India, whether Sinhalese or Tamil! Stop repeatedly changing it to Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan are often considered desi countries and Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives may also be considered desi countries! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.80.178 (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT based on opinion, so you shouldn't be stating your opinion, I don't care if you don't agree with it there are many things people don't agree with but they need to accept it. Look at the sources there is a reason why it has been written like that. I have suspicions that you're the same user as the user who started this whole thing because like them you failed to sign off with the tildes. I'm going to tell you this now, "sock puppetry" is a serious offence on Wikipedia. (120.144.46.179 (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC))

No, not sock puppeting! This is my first time writing commentary on a talk page, genius, so I wasn't aware you had to sign with tildes! Just because I happen to agree with the other poster doesn't automatically mean sock-puppetry! And by the way, reference 5 did not provide a page regarding South Asians, so not exactly a good source of information. And while reference 2 and 3 only included Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi, reference 4 did include the other groups such as Nepali and Sri Lankan. Here, now I'll sign off with the tilde so you don't get your panties in a wad!207.255.80.178 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines, you are not supposed to speak to me in that manner. I don't know who you are but please control your tongue. Yes those last sources do mention it but you can see major dictionary definitions do not refer to any other part of South Asia besides Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, hence why the introduction has been written like that, your opinion does not dictate what is on Wikipedia and what is not, please learn that. Source number 3 describes the varied definitions of Desi and is a good source and supports the information presented in the introduction. Also, look at source number 5 properly, if that means reading the entire book then do it because the information regarding South Asians is there. I never said you were a sock-puppet because you agree with the OP, don't put words into my mouth. I assumed you were a sock-puppet because they have made edits that appear to indicate their Sri Lankan heritage as well. Your overuse of exclamation marks alludes to the rhetoric used by the user who started this thing and "Please stop going back and forth with this!" indicates that you are well aware and part of this issue which is suspicious since this page is not frequented as much and the first edit you ever made was on a talk page. If this was your first edit then you wouldn't start with that statement, it makes it seem like you are the same user and that is an offence on Wikipedia. (124.180.143.177 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC))

OK, fine, but here are a couple more sources suggesting that the term desi is in fact used by Sri Lankans, Nepalis, etc.. to refer to themselves.

http://www.dynadot.com/community/blog/2014/10/desis-have-desi-domain.html

http://desilit.org/chapters/30-2/ ≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.207.250.207 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

And here is more evidence that the term "desi" includes other groups such as Sri Lankans or Maldivians in addition to Indians, Pakistanis, and Banglandeshis.

https://orgsync.com/135345138.207.250.175 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Pakistanis are not "Desis"

I find this term being used to describe Pakistanis (and Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, Nepalese) as almost comical. "Desi" is just another term for Indian and is barely used by anyone outside of India or the Indian diaspora. This just seems like another desperate attempt to try and "clump" everyone in South Asia together. Seems like colonial mentality refuses to die among Indians. "British India" was not a real country, it was an occupation by European colonialists from 1845 until 1947. And this article seems to have been written by someone who jerked off to a map of that joke called "Akhand Bharat".

I can't speak for Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans, but a majority of Pakistanis don't even share the same culture, language or even genetics to Indians. Pakistanis are Indus people, whereas Indians are mainly Gangetic (north Indian) or Dravidian (south Indian) peope. The genetic differences can clearly be seen in this genetic map which I've posted below.

Genetic differences between Pakistani ethnic groups and Indian ethnic groups https://scontent-mrs1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15965061_1400687309991249_8461749204543774803_n.jpg?oh=59441e7e69e1e07e117a03df170725f4&oe=59017C05

Genetic map of Pakistan https://scontent-mrs1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/13613503_1162034230523226_1521381285587821001_o.jpg?oh=a5d4b1cf58999ae8d2486ec704e3ff5b&oe=590FBCF4

For further information, please refer to Human Genetic Clustering which clearly proves my point.

Pakistanis also speak and write languages based on the Persian-Urdu Alphabet (ie. Urdu, Pashto, Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi, Kashmiri, Wakhi, Hindko, Seraiki, Brahui etc.) whereas Indians write in Sanskrit based script (I don't know the script I just took a guess).

95 odd years of British Indian occupation does not erase 9000 years of Indus culture and history that Pakistan adopted in 1947. So this article either needs to be re-written or simply deleted. Thank you.

@PAKHIGHWAY: you are talking approximately rubbish… Hindi and Urdu are basically the same language (minor lexical differences but basically, almost 100% inter-understandable), only the script used to write them is different. Pakistanis use an arabic-based script (and it's certainly not for 9000 years… huh… and yes, farsi also use an arabic-based script… so don't try to invent some other roots to the so-called "persian-urdu alphabet") while Indians use one of the various brahmic based scripts. Nothing colonial nor postcolonial here, except maybe your own racism. Your language come from the same regional area like northern indians, but your writing system come from the arabic peninsula (so… clearly not from the Indus valley). Your remark is truly racist. 118.68.29.201 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2017

Can you please add these sources back in the introduction after the sentence, "Bhutan, the Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka may also be considered "Desi" countries in some usages of the term".

I'm not sure why they were removed because they were included to show how the term differs in context and how they always include India, Pakistan and Bangladesh as opposed to other South Asian countries. 101.160.170.136 (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

References

@Becky Sayles: These sources were there since last year. They were removed so I'm only trying to reinstate them. (110.148.150.99 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC))

Fences and windows appears to have removed them here indicating "not a reliable source". If you disagree, please establish a consensus that the source is reliable and that they should be added back, before requesting this edit.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  01:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay. (110.148.150.99 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC))

The Cram101 books, aka Just the Facts 101, C.T.I. Reviews and Content Technologies Inc., are not OK to use as sources because these "books" copy their information from Wikipedia. Using them as a source would be circular referencing. See WP:PUS for more on such books and other suspect sources. Fences&Windows 07:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's another source: "Derived from the Hindi word desh or homeland, “desi” is a category of identification that has historically circulated within the South Asian diaspora in the United States. Scholars examining South Asian diasporic contexts have pointed out that the category has hegemonically functioned to privilege Indian, Hindu, middle-class, hetero-patriarchal ideologies within the immigrant locale (e.g., Maira 2002; Prashad 2000; Shukla 2003) ... the physical territories that are invoked in the definition of desi on drumnyc.org indicate the counter-hegemonic politics supported by DRUM. In addition to the seven countries of South Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, and India), Africa, Fiji, Guyana, the United Kingdom, and Trinidad are also included as desi spaces given the substantial presence of people of South Asian descent in these regions." Fences&Windows 08:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

References

@Fences and windows: Thanks for clearing that up, I saw something similar in your edit summary and I was confused as to what you were referring to but I understand now. I guess it's quite subjective as most definitions refer to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh only. Even the official definition at Oxford Dictionaries says, "A person of Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi birth or descent who lives abroad". (110.148.150.99 (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC))

Pakistanis are NOT Desi 2.0

I have removed any mention of Pakistan in this joke of article and will continue removing Pakistan until I find substantial evidence that any self-respecting Pakistani (or South Asian for that matter who isn't from India) would consider calling him or herself "desi". This term is completely foreign to me and continuously shoving other countries into this joke of a article is just lame. Under what basis are you claiming that Pakistanis and Sri Lankans and Bangladeshis are "desi". Who says? A couple of random internet articles? Please.

Term usage

This term is foreign to Pakistanis. The only place where I have heard "desi" ever being used is northeast Punjab. Nobody in the rest of Punjab or the rest of Pakistan for that matter uses the term "desi". It's completely foreign to us.

@PAKHIGHWAY: since Punjab is in Pakistan, at least some pakistanis refer to themselves as Desi people, according to your own words… So, why this drama? 118.68.29.201 (talk)

Definition of "desi" is different in Pakistan

The term "desi" in northeast Punjab also means something different than what this joke of article is trying to explain. For Punjabis in the northeast, desi has two meanings:

• 1st meaning: "desi" is defined as "local" or "native"

I don't understand why a Punjabi would call him or herself a "desi" in Britain or the United States when he or she isn't even local or native of that country.

• 2nd meaning: "desi" is defined as "older" or "pure"

For example, when comparing ghee there is valaiti ghee and desi ghee.

Debunking the genetic basis

If the term "desi" is being used because we share similar genetics, then I'm sorry to break it to you but Pakistani ethnic groups and Indian ethnic groups share no similarities whatsoever. In fact, the difference are quite distinct. Pakistani ethnic groups (Indus nations) share similar genetic makeup which starkly differs that of North Indian ethnic groups (Gangetic nations) and South Indian ethnic groups (Dravidian nations). The information was compiled by Human genetic clustering studies.

• Genetic differences between Pakistani ethnic groups and Indian ethnic groups

https://scontent-mrs1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15965061_1400687309991249_8461749204543774803_n.jpg?oh=59441e7e69e1e07e117a03df170725f4&oe=59017C05

• Genetic map of Pakistan

https://scontent-mrs1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/13613503_1162034230523226_1521381285587821001_o.jpg?oh=a5d4b1cf58999ae8d2486ec704e3ff5b&oe=590FBCF4

@PAKHIGHWAY: nobody here except yourself is talking about races or genetics… it's a matter of cultures from the indian subcontinent and influence area 118.68.29.201 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Debunking the linguistic basis

If the term "desi" is being used because we share similar languages, then sorry again...but we don't share the same languages either.

• Script:

All Pakistani languages are written using the Persian-Urdu Nastaliq script, whereas Indian languages are written in Brahmic scripts.

• Groups:

All Pakistani languages are either Indo-Aryan, Dardic or Iranian languages, whereas Indian languages are mainly Dravidian.

@PAKHIGHWAY: Are you kidding people here? Hindi and Urdu are basically the same language. Just the script used to write them is different (Urdu is written in an arabic based script, while Hindi is written on Brahmic/Devanegari based script). Can you promise if you are an Urdu speaker that you cannot speak with an Hindi speaker without lying? Certainly not. In India, Dravidian languages are languages from the very south, like Kannada. Most of India speak Indo-Aryan languages dude. Don't try to smoke people and bully the encyclopedia with your fake facts. 118.68.29.201 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Debunking the ethnic basis

The most hilarious thing I find is when people say "Pakistanis and Indians are the same" as if Pakistani or Indian is an "ethnic" term. These are political terms that define several ETHNIC GROUPS that reside in both countries. The only ethnic group that is found in both Pakistan and India are PUNJABIS...and in Pakistan, Punjabis are only found in the northeastern part of Punjab province. The rest is inhabited by Seraikis, Hindkowans and Pahari people. Other than that, there is no significant large populations that are found in both countries. Even the Indian Muslims who came to Pakistan in 1947 were no more than 4-6 million. So you're telling me 4 to 6 million people are going to define 190 million people today?

@PAKHIGHWAY: don't play fool. Desi is a matter of regional culture, and people from the Indian subcontinent and Indus valley share some common characteristics on the cultural continuum, despite having many different ethnics and languages... just like the french, the spanish, the british and the german do. Desi is a term used to refer to that fact. 118.68.29.201 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Give your head a big shake. So it's incredibly stupid to use this word as an ethnonym when we already have our own identity Pakistanis or Overseas Pakistanis. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@PAKHIGHWAY: The source next to the information confirms that they are considered "Desi". The claims you're bringing up do not support what is "Desi" and what is not. Please understand that Wikipedia does not support POV edits. Just because you may not agree with it doesn't mean it's incorrect, the source exemplifies that. (110.148.124.207 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC))

@110.148.124.207: This is not a POV, these are facts that I have presented and legitimate questions I have raised. If you can't digest facts, then I'm sorry. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@PAKHIGHWAY: No it appears to be POV since sources already listed on the page say Pakistan is a Desi country. You have not provided any sources that state "Pakistan is not a Desi country", have you? Desi is not determined by ethnicity, if you didn't know, it's more of a cultural descriptor. There was no need to say, "If you can't digest facts, then I'm sorry", this is Wikipedia after all. If you can't answer in a sensible manner then I'm going to take this to the Admin noticeboard to get a third opinion. (121.214.15.1 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC))

@PAKHIGHWAY: [I see from your userpage that you're taking a break, but pinging anyway in case you return.] It's not just a question of whether a "self-respecting Pakistani" would call him/herself desi, but also whether a first- or second-generation Pakistani-American might be drawn to the term. Or indeed whether a young (non-Pakistani) activist might want to expand desi to include Sri Lankans, some Pakistanis, etc. in order to promote the idea of south-asian solidarity. You might not like it, but these seem to be ways that the word is being used in certain parts of the world.

It would be great if the article could explain these nuances better, but as always good sources are a challenge.

Pelagic (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pelagic: I should delete that break message now, since I am actually back. At the moment I'm busy with Pakistan Railways and related articles. I have read what you wrote and I understand where you're coming from. If that's the case, then this article should make it clear that American immigrants of South Asian background consider themselves desi, and not Pakistanis or Sri Lankans or whomever. The thing that I have noticed on Wikipedia is a concerted effort by Indians in particular to merge all South Asian nationalities into an "Indian" umbrella. Furthermore, the article in question (Desi) uses ridiculous biased Indian news sources which have business being called real news. Anyhow, I do have plenty of authentic sources in my mind, but it will take time for me to gather them all up. Once I get them, I'll happily share them in the talk section and request the admins to make necessary changes if they deem my sources as credible. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I second PakHighways comments. These words are strongly stereotypical and not supported by a single verifiable anthropological source. Popular culture terms are not acceptable on an encyclopedia, except for the mention that it's a loose term used in popular culture.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a single one of these claims can be verified by a non-biased source. Similarly, Indo-Aryan languages are actually the dominant languages in India, too, so they aren't 'Mainly Dravidian' at all. Hindi, the Bihari languages, Marathi, Gujarati, Kashmiri and the Dardic languages, Assamese, Bengali are ALL Indo-Aryan --Theudariks (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Several sources including Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and Maldives as desi nations

Here we have several sources that support the assertion that desi nations include Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and Maldives as well as Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.207.250.207 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=D7FXAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=sri+lanka+desi+country&source=bl&ots=Mvb4_1K6pJ&sig=Ypa9NrNnnEEmm9LtqmjuoF_7SFk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuo6eeg4zTAhUp0oMKHWOpBK44ChDoAQghMAI#v=onepage&q=sri%20lanka%20desi%20country&f=false

http://www.dynadot.com/community/blog/2014/10/desis-have-desi-domain.html

http://desilit.org/chapters/30-2/

https://orgsync.com/135345138.207.250.207 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Phonetics incorrect

In the sentence- Desi is an Indo-Aryan term that ultimately originates in the Sanskrit देश (deśa) "region. The pronounciation indicated "deśa" is incorrect as it is instead written as देसा. On the other hand, देश will be written as "desh" in English characters. I am a native speaker of and academic in Hindi Aishpan (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

   This is Sanskrit, though, not Hindi. In Sanskrit देश is indeed pronounced "deśa". देसा, on the other hand, would be pronounced as "deshaa" with a long "a" 
   (marker of the feminine gender) at the end.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:6881:6F00:1463:5B2C:D58D:1C8C (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC) 

Who is criticizing the term?

At the end there it says that the term is "strongly criticized". Who is crticizing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:702:110D:206B:A37E:9C59 (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Desi. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060518083228/http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~dkapchan/home/folkloreweb/interactive/indianfilm/indianclub.html to http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~dkapchan/home/folkloreweb/interactive/indianfilm/indianclub.html

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) 02:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018

Could somebody please remove "The Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka may also be considered "desi" countries in some usages of the term"? I can't find any source for the inclusion of those countries. The inclusion of those countries has been disputed for a very long time as seen in the edit history of this page and it has caused a lot of problems over the years. It is the reason why I asked for this page to be protected last year following disruptive edits made by a user. 120.144.157.210 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I see considerable discussion further up the talk page about this exact topic, including several links to sources. The fact that the inclusion of this sentence is in dispute means an edit request cannot be granted - edit requests may only be used for requests which are clearly uncontroversial or which are already supported by clear consensus. See WP:EDITREQ#General considerations. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@ElHef: I've had a look at the sources that the above IP users provided none of them confirm any of the information. The first source ([1]) clearly says, "desi has functioned as a code for all things Indian". The second source ([2]) Is not an academic source and says nothing about Maldivians, Nepalis or Sri Lankans. The third and final source ([3]) is not an academic source either. The reason why there are no citations next to that sentence is because there are no reliable sources that confirm that those countries can be listed as "Desi". A registered user removed all the sources next to that sentence last year because none of them were reliable, they included opinion pieces and books that copied Wikipedia material and other mirror sites. The issue has gone on for so long because nobody can find a credible source to prove that the claim is true. I think the best thing to do is to remove it. (121.214.111.156 (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC))

I took a closer look at the sources discussed on this page, and I agree that nothing has been put forth that would support that statement. I've removed that sentence from the lede of the article as requested. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you about the first source. While it does say that "desi has functioned as a code for all things Indian", it also says that, "To be desi, in the most conventional sense of the term, is to claim a cultural belonging, affiliation, and ancestry to one or more of the countries in South Asia, including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Nepal." In addition, the other two sources may not be academic, but they are from South Asian organizations, which imply that groups such as Nepali and Sri Lankan are included under the term "desi." The reason this is relevant is because "desi" is a slang term that South Asians use among themselves to refer to their own ethnic group. The fact that Sri Lankans and Nepalis are included suggests that they are also considered desis by other South Asians. And, in any case, I really doubt you will find too many academic sources giving a precise definition of the word desi as it is a slang term, as I have already mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.115.206 (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@174.140.115.206:, have a look at the sources again. You can't just assume things and "fill in the gaps". If you were to make such changes to the page based on your reasons that would breach the rule of Wikipedia:No original research. Please read it. (120.144.154.144 (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I have looked at the first source. Even though I agree it says, “Desi has functioned as a code for all things Indian”, it also clearly states, “To be Desi,in the most conventional sense of the term, is to claim a cultural affiliation or belonging to one or more of the countries in South Asia, including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Nepal.”174.140.115.206 (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but we must analyse those words first. What the author is clearly trying to say is that "desi" should in the "most conventional sense of the term" be used to refer to all South Asian countries. The key word in that sentence is "conventional". The author however clearly states right after it that, "in its typical usage, desi has functioned as a code for all things Indian". The author clearly accepts the reality that "desi" in the vernacular language is synonymous with "Indian" and it does not reflect the true boundaries of the South Asian region. As already stated above, it's a subjective term and people will have different opinions on what the term means. However, it has to be accepted that based on dictionary definitions and vernacular expression, "desi" is typically associated with India, Pakistan and Bangladesh only. People in South Asian countries like Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Nepal and Bhutan don't actually identify with the term "desi". For example, in Sri Lanka "desi" refers to people of Indian and Pakistani descent and the cultures of India and Pakistan which are influenced by Hinduism and Islam respectively as well as different cultural traditions. Sri Lanka is a Buddhist-majority country that has been influenced greatly by Buddhism with close ties to parts of south India and Southeast Asia thus people don't feel any sort of affinity to the term "desi" because to them it's foreign. To the Sri Lankans, the term is indicative of an Indian or Pakistani cultural identity. In Nepal, the term is used to refer to Indians. Have a look at this headline from the major Indian newspaper, Times of India, "Indonesia, Turkey, Sri Lanka crazy about desi TV shows too!". Clearly, the Times of India doesn't consider Sri Lanka or Sri Lankan people as "desi". That's because the term is subjective. We must accept the reality that the term is subjective and that it generally relates to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh only. Those credible sources we have on the Wikipedia page support these claims and the introduction on the page clearly shows that as well. (121.219.241.141 (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

Could somebody please revert changes made by UserNumber (talk · contribs)? They have added unsourced information to the page without any references. They also claimed that the source mentioned more countries and ethnic groups but that's a lie because they don't. This page has for so long been disrupted by various people. I successfully lobbied for this page to be protected in 2017 because of a sockpuppet's disruptive edits and to prevent IP addresses from disrupting it but the same thing continues to happen with registered users. It's so frustrating. Please restore the version last edited by Typritc (talk · contribs). Thanks. (120.144.154.144 (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)) 120.144.154.144 (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: A version of this edit request was already implemented once in April (by me, in fact), and doing it again would perpetuate a slow-motion edit war. Edit requests can only be implemented for edits that are clearly uncontroversial or supported by consensus, which this clearly is not. I suggest you continue the discussion on the talk page to resolve this, or seek out dispute resolution to address this issue. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@ElHef: Okay thank you for the link. However, the thing is the edit made by has no sources. I'm not sure why consensus needs to be reached on this topic if there are no credible sources to support such claims. Not to mention, the inclusion of minority ethnic groups in other countries is extremely subjective. The user is basing their claims on ethnic groups that speak Indo-Aryan languages and Dravidian languages. No source supports such a claim and the term "desi" has no relation to the language one speaks. None of the sources on the page support such a claim but the user has incorrectly claimed that the sources do. Nevertheless, I've opened a discussion at the user's talk page but I still don't understand why consensus needs to be reached on something like this. There are no sources hence it can be removed according to the rules of Wikipedia. (121.214.122.224 (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC))

You can undo my edit. UserNumber (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2018

Could somebody please restore the version of Desi published by Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs)? Avhiyan (talk · contribs) added unsourced to the information despite a discussion above that confirmed that no such credible sources exist to support the inclusion of such information. 121.214.54.10 (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Dolotta (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is another source to check out: hepg.org/her-home/issues/Harvard-educational-review...73../desis-in-the-house_85≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.123.48 (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

Could somebody please restore the version of Desi published by AjaxSmack (talk · contribs)? Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs) added incorrectly sourced information despite a discussion that confirmed that no such credible sources exist to support the inclusion of such information.

Highpeaks35 claims the source supports the inclusion of "Sri Lanka, Maldives and Nepal" but the source doesn't. The source says, "The South Asian experience is complex, mired, and expansive. It includes the stories of men and women who can trace their heritages back to nations besides India, such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and Nepal". Nowhere does it state that those three countries are considered "Desi", not to mention that Rohin Gaha's source is actually about how "Desi" only refers to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Could somebody please restore the original version? I got this page protected in 2017 to prevent these types of edits, I'm disappointed that a registered user is making edits without a credible source. 101.189.37.178 (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Let's put the Oxford dictionary above a blogger as a reliable source until we find something better. The sentence could use better sourcing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The definition of desi according to Oxford Learner's Dictionary:

<ref https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/desi_1>ref

174.140.115.206 (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@101.189.37.178 The fact that you deleted my comment, which does in fact provide a link to a credible source, suggests that you in fact are not concerned about stating facts in the article but rather pushing some sort of agenda. If this wasn’t the case, you would have tried refuting my point with a counter argument. The fact that you deleted my statement suggests that you couldn’t provide a satisfactory rebuttal to my point. You asked for a credible source that incorporates Sri Lankans under the term Desi. I have provided it, the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. So what’s your problem? Other users are allowed to disagree with your opinion. You have also been very rude and condescending whenever I have in fact tried to provide sources that I honestly thought were legitimate. And you deleted my input as well. You say Sri Lankan’s do not consider themselves Desi. You know this how? Did you take a survey to see how many consider themselves Desi? You used dictionary definitions and academic sources. So did I. The talk pages are a forum where anybody can contribute anything to the discussion as long as they use credible sources. Learn to be more open-minded to viewpoints that differ from yours. 2600:1016:B10A:6381:BDEB:836E:B036:2B55 (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

And by the way, here’s another academic source that provides another definition of desi

https://www.hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-73-issue-3/herbooknote/desis-in-the-house_85 174.140.123.48 (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Re-read the source, no where does it state that Sri Lankans consider themselves as Desis and I say that as a Sri Lankan. You provided a source that gives the opinion of another person that happens to be Indian. What the source confirms is that it's subjective and that's what the source confirms so I'm sorry but your source only proves my point. Also, it is you that deleted my edit requests. If you want to be taken seriously then don't delete other people's edits for no valid reason. (2001:8003:4E6E:8700:156A:5ACE:CE02:58C5 (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC))

Um no. Try again. The author clearly states the term “Desi” is a term for a native of South Asia that has taken hold among many second-generation youth of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Sri Lankan descent. That suggests that youth of Sri Lankan descent use the term to describe themselves as well. As for my deleting your edit request, I already told you on my talk page that it was by accident, as much as I disagreed with your viewpoint, and I apologised. You don’t want to believe me, fine. But you were the one who deleted my attempts to introduce new sources that I thought were credible and you did that long before I deleted your edit requests. Furthermore, you ignored the dictionary definition I introduced from Oxford Learner’s dictionary. In fact, you deleted that too. As a Sri Lankan, I think my sources are perfectly legitimate. You’re just trying to slant the article in favour of your own point of view. Here’s how I know this. You wanted me to provide academic sources. So I did. Now you’re moving the goalposts. You’re saying the sources have to be provided by Sri Lankan’s. Besides that, you deleted my attempts to introduce new sources on the talk page. And again before I deleted any edit requests which, as I said before, was unintentional. Accept the fact that not everything on Wikipedia is going to agree with your viewpoint and move on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B047:F363:4424:7930:4983:E375 (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Re-read your source before you post this again it says, "[Maria] defines desi as “a colloquial term for someone ‘native’ to South Asia and one that has taken hold among many second-generation youth in the Diaspora of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan, or even Indo-Caribbean, descent” - that's her own definition and thus proving my point that the term is subjective. Like it was already established in a discussion in 2018, that "Desi" is subjective and it generally refers to Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis only. Sri Lankans have nothing to do with North Indians or Pakistanis, we're culturally closer to South Indians so it makes sense why the term hasn't caught on in diasporic communities. Yes you provided an academic source but it only proved my point at how subjective this term is. Using somebody's own personal opinion as a credible source is not valid. Move on? It is you that needs to accept the result of the discussion that was held in 2018 and move on. Stop spamming the talk page with sources that aren't valid. You need to accept the fact that "Desi" generally refers to Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis only. End of discussion. (2001:8003:4E6E:8700:3D3C:EE8D:4D14:7F4E (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC))

Oh okay. So if the term “Desi” is subjective, why are you acting like it’s a fact that it only refers to Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis? Seems to me that that’s subjective too. And are you telling me that only North Indians and not South Indians are Desi, if we are going with your assumption that Sri Lankan’s are closest to South Indians? Which, by the way, is not entirely true, as one of the articles in this very online encyclopaedia, genetic studies on Sinhalese, points out genetic evidence suggesting Sinhalese descent from both South Indians and Bengalis, using a variety of scientific references. Seems to me both North and South Indians use the term “Desi” to refer to themselves. And stop going on about how I deleted your edit requests. I already told you I deleted one by accident and I apologised. But if you need to hear it again, fine. I’m sorry. And the article was already changed to include Nepalis and Sri Lankan’s even before your edit request was deleted. And not by me either, but rather other users. I merely provided input on the talk page. Furthermore, you included other edit requests after that. I also don’t consider introducing sources that I honestly think are credible “spamming.” I’m sorry they don’t fit your definition of what is considered credible. But thank you for demonstrating to me how editors on this forum are willing to stifle debate and discussion. I am done now. Do whatever you want to the article. I really don’t care.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02C:ED02:E0DF:1FA5:A271:C190 (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I said it "generally refers to Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis only", the key word to understand is "generally". "Desi" is not a term referring to genetics, it's a cultural term. "Desi" in Western English usage generally pertains to North Indian culture, not South Indian culture. It's so restrictive that it even led to the emergence of the hashtag, #SouthIndianAndProud due to the restrictive nature of "Desi". Sri Lankans (both Sinhalese and Tamils) are culturally related to South Indians (Kerala and Tamil Nadu). Bengalis aren't North Indian, they're an East Indian ethnic group. So Sinhalese have ancestry deriving from an East Indian contribution and a South Indian contribution. Anyway, genetics has nothing to do with this. Somebody made the change without any sources, it was reverted but somebody made the edit again. There is no source that says, "generally refers to Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalis and Sri Lankans only" so neither "Nepali" or "Sri Lankan" should be included in that sentence because none of the sources listed on the page confirm this addition of information. Stifle debate? I explained to you that your source uses a lady's opinion. Opinions are not sources! So don't tell me that I'm stifling debate and please read the Wikipedia guidelines on sources. (2001:8003:4E6E:8700:9DD8:2261:6308:B856 (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC))

OK, so we agree that Sinhalese have both Bengali and South Indian ancestry. But Bangladeshis, by definition, are Bengali, which as you said, is East Indian and not North Indian. So why are Bangladeshis grouped under the umbrella term “Desi” and not Sri Lankan’s? That doesn’t make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.115.206 (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It's incorrect to say "Sinhalese have Bengali and South Indian ancestry", the right thing to say would be they have "Bengali/East Indian and South Indian admixture". Also, please read the rest of my paragraph. "Desi" has nothing to do with genetics, it's to do with culture and Sri Lankans (Sinhalese and Tamils) have nothing to do with the vast majority of Bangladeshis culturally. Sri Lankans are mostly Buddhists and Hindus and are culturally similar to South Indians. There is also significant Indonesian influence in Sri Lankan culture. I don't make the rules, people generally use the term "Desi"for people from northern South Asia like North Indians and Pakistanis and in many cases Bangladeshis as well. Southern South Asians (Sri Lankans, Maldivians and South Indians) as well as Nepalis and Bhutanese are generally not included in "Desi". I've come across North Indians and Pakistanis that have explicitly said "Sri Lankans aren't Desis", so you can see how subjective the term is. (2001:8003:4E6E:8700:5812:1959:E170:CD90 (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC))

Oh, one more thing. The quote from that article says “Desi is a colloquial term for someone native to South Asia and one that has taken hold among many second-generation youth in the diaspora of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan, or even Indo-Caribbean descent.” The author is therefore saying that second-generation youth of Sri Lankan and other South Asian descent use the term “Desi” to describe themselves. She, herself, is not saying that she considers Sri Lankan’s to be desi. Therefore, the author is not stating an opinion but rather a fact that second generation youth of Sri Lankan as well as other South Asian descent use the term “Desi” to describe themselves. Also, Sinhalese, in particular, share cultural similarities with North India as well as South India. Their language is Indo-Aryan and is more closely related to Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, etc.... than Kannada, Tamil, Malayalam, etc...Also, their religion, Buddhism, came from northern India, not southern India≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.123.48 ([[User talk:174.140.123.48#top|talk174.140.115.206 (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 16:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I already told you that the source contains somebody's opinion. You need to understand that the term is subjective. I don't know how many times I am going to have repeat this to you until you understand it. You can't change the facts, just accept them. It's subjective and the term is generally used to refer to Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis only. This is what credible source say so that's what we follow and accept. Also, that's just false. Sinhalese culture does not share similatities with North Indian culture in the ways you're describing. Just because Buddhism originated in North India does not mean Buddhism is culturally "North Indian", it's not. The form of Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka is called Theravada Buddhism and from Sri Lanka it was taken to Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Burma. Must I remind you that Buddhism is not even practiced in North India? So trying to call it culturally "North Indian" makes no sense when it hasn't been practiced in North India for thousands of years. Yes, Sinhalese is an Indo-Aryan language but it's an insular Indo-Aryan language. Hindi, Marathi etc. are not insular Indo-Aryan languages. (2001:8003:4E7A:200:3996:DFC4:D990:8BF9 (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC))

Fine then. Let's take a look at one of YOUR sources, in particular the one by Guha. We'll even leave aside the fact that this is not an academic source but rather an OPINION piece, written in what I presume is a magazine targeted toward the South Asian community. I would actually think an article published in the Harvard Educational Review is more credible and much more of an academic source, but I digress. Guha does indeed include the Oxford Dictionary definition, which says "a person of Indian, Pakistani, or Bengali descent who lives abroad." However, he also goes on to say, "This kind of clinical meaning doesn't account for how 'desi' identity has morphed. It makes no mention of Sri Lanka or the Maldives. It even seems to think 'desi' applies uniquely to non-resident members of the South Asian community." So Guha himself is actually criticising the Oxford Dictionary Definition of "desi." He is saying that "desi" identity has expanded beyond India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. He also says the term, as defined in the Oxford Dictionary, limits itself to NON-RESIDENT nationals of those countries. He is actually saying that the Oxford Dictionary Definition of "desi", which you also used as a source, is too narrow. And yes, even though the Oxford Dictionary definition does define "desi" as a person of Indian, Pakistani, or Bengali descent who lives abroad, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary says something completely different. It says, 'local or belonging to a particular place; Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, or Sri Lankan." Here is the reference: <ref> https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/desi_1>ref So even two dictionaries that are both published by Oxford do not agree on the definition of "desi".174.140.115.206 (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)174.140.115.206 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)174.140.115.206 (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)174.140.115.206 (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)174.140.115.206 (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)174.140.115.206 (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What don't you understand? It's subjective. The general consensus is that Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are the only groups of people described as "Desis" and this is what most sources suggest. Of course there are exceptions but considering the fact that most Sri Lankans don't even know what "Desi" means only proves how this term is used. I shall repeat, the general consensus is that Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are the only groups of people described as "Desis". It's subjective, take it or leave it. (2001:8003:4E76:8500:3CAB:983C:993C:6920 (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2019

Please reinstate the version established here. There is a group of users that continue to break the rules of Wikipedia and include other countries to the list despite the fact that we had a discussion that based on the credible sources we have, only India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are considered "Desi" countries. The sources featured i the article's introduction do not support the inclusion of "Nepal" or "Sri Lanka", so those two countries should not be listed. I got this page blocked two years ago for the sole purpose of avoiding these types of edits. Please revert it to the original version. 101.182.37.34 (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There is ongoing discussion here on this subject as recently as last week. I don't see any sort of clear consensus here. Please continue discussion on the talk page, and seek dispute resolution if needed. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@ElHef: The discussion has ended and I have closed it now. My IP address changes but I was part of the discussion and the other user said, "I am done now" and that's why the other IP user has not replied since my last reply on the 15th of July. We have re-established the fact that the term is subjective and there are no credible sources for the inclusion of any other country besides Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. (2001:8003:4E6E:8700:D199:C4D3:3307:F63B (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC))

First off, please don't close discussions that you have been involved in. I have removed the archive tags from that section.

Secondly, consensus is created by users reaching an agreement on a way to move forward. One party to a discussion saying "I am done now. Do whatever you want to the article. I really don’t care." doesn't show me that consensus was reached, but rather that that person was frustrated to the point of giving up. (Besides which, the discussion continued for a bit after that was said.)

As I've mentioned before on this page, edit requests are intended for edits that are uncontroversial improvements (which this is clearly not) or that are already supported by clear consensus (which I do not see). The correct way forward here is to continue working toward achieving a consensus between the parties involved - through continued discussion here on the talk page if possible, or with outside assistance if needed - but not through edit requests. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@ElHef: Apologies, I should not have done that.

Yes I acknowledge the fact that the other is frustrated but the whole problem with this is that the user who is disputing the information has no credible source for the inclusion of Nepal and Sri Lanka in the article's introduction. None of the sources in the article's introduction at the moment support the inclusion of Nepal or Sri Lanka. So those countries should not even be listed there. So until we find credible sources that support the claim the other user is making, neither Nepal or Sri Lanka should be listed in the article's introduction. You also agreed with this last year and removed the unsourced information. (2001:8003:4E6E:8700:D199:C4D3:3307:F63B (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC))

I did do that last year, since it was clear that no sources had been provided that supported the removed bits. Since then there have been other sources provided on the talk page (including a dictionary definition) that directly support at least the addition of Sri Lanka, and plenty of discussion surrounding the addition/removal of both Sri Lanka and Nepal. In addition, someone clearly disagreed with me and added those countries back to the article. It is obvious to me from all of this that there is no consensus here, and until a clear consensus does exist, I will not act further in this dispute. As I said before - please continue to seek consensus on this topic, and if that's not possible, WP:Dispute resolution is thataway. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@ElHef: Okay, I think I will go through WP:Dispute resolution since it's been an issue, in its current form, since last year in order to reach a consensus.

One more thing, since none of the sources listed in the article's introduction at the current moment actually support the inclusion of Nepal or Sri Lanka should those two countries not be removed? In disputes, is it not the rule that newly added information that is disputed is removed until a consensus is achieved for its inclusion? (101.182.115.81 (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC))

Language vs. Alphabet

"Thus, svadeśa (Sanskrit: स्वदेश) refers to one's own country or homeland, while paradeśa (Sanskrit: परदेश) refers to another's country or a foreign land."

svadeśa is a Sanskrit word. The way the above sentence is written, it seems like it isn't and then you add the Sanskrit translation, while in truth you're only adding the spelling of the same word in Devanagari. So instead of '(Sanskrit: स्वदेश)' the text should read '(Devanagari: स्वदेश)'. Same with the following parenthesis. There is no need, by the way, to point out in this sentence that the words mentioned are Sanskrit words, as this is already clear from what precedes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:6881:6F00:1463:5B2C:D58D:1C8C (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Desi pronunciation

A pronunciation in English would be useful. The phonetics given at the top of this article is a narrow transcription [d̪eːsi], which (since /d̪/ and /eː/ aren't native English phonemes) I assume is the pronunciation of the word in a South Asian language (Hindi perhaps?). The common anglicized pronunciation would also be useful (and a specificity about what language /d̪eːsi/ represents too). I always assumed it was /'de.si/, but I've seen /'deɪ.si/ online? --Tomatoswoop (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)