Talk:Desi

message: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shwetayd (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Desi, what does it simply mean? Which countries does it include?  

message: I find this term being used to describe Pakistanis (and Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, Nepalese) as almost comical. "Desi" is just another term for people in india pakistan and bangladesh . 
Indian and Pakistani cultures are largely the same , india is unique in the sense that its got a mix of the south the west and east of south Asia all in one but if i were to say what it is mainly, i would say south India and west south Asia which includes Pakistan. Ethnically speaking you cant see gangetic people indus people etc etc , indus people are the people are the people originating from the indus valley and those people were largely hindus or dharmic these people spread themselves all across india mainly the north as there were 2 waves of migration , which is why its appropriate to say north indians are indus people , plus there is no such thing as gangetic people as all the empires occuring on the gangetic plain were made by central asian and indus people. I see many Pakistanis trying to differentiate themselves with the iranian and afghan or dardic culure desperately even though they make up a minority of the culture , they are so desperate they go on to make outrages claims that pakistani culture is no where near the same as indian , these people must keep in mind when Pakistan was created the creators of these nations largely did not care about areas such as balochistan as even though these areas are part of the indian subcontinent its been a while since any empire had brought all of that together , so when pakistan was made these places were never taken into consideration which is why when paksitan was made the pashtuns had their own freedom group from the start and this still goes onto today as well as the balochs   , you dont see indians doing this simply because india is too big and different all thought .However these people are mistaken in many senses as if you look at the baloch dna the iranic group of pakistan , they have a large amount of ASI dna which is very also very common in south india specifically states like kerala, karnatka, telengana (not so much east south india).The only added difference i will give to the "region" of pakistan is that they were slightly more exposed to western medieval forces so ultimately in terms of concentration indus genes are more concentrated however if youre talking about sheer number indus genes are much more in india but it wnt be as concentrate simply because its so lare .
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).
^^ as you can see this person is desperately trying to differentiate themselves from india and its pathetic , Persian urdu alphabet is not a thing and he made that up for obvious reasons urdu does use the persian script , furthermore he includes the most irrelevant languages in Pakistan that literally 1 percent of the population speak like hindko and wakhi because these Pakistanis try to portray themselves as iranic a lot more, he also suggested indians write largely in the sanskrit script and seemed to act like as if he doesnt even know what sanskrit is . .What urdu was a language not even made in paksitan was largely more of a north indian thing not just concentrated to Pakistan , if you look at punjab pre partition everyone used to be able to read in both scripts same goes with sindhi , and urdu was a language largely forced upon Pakistanis today , as you can see in the stats there are significantly more people in india speaking urdu as their first language  however more people in Pakistan speak urdu as their second language than india, however cultural representation of urdu has decreased largely because of religious intolerance created due to partition as many indians see urdu as a muslim language and hindi as a hindu one  , but pre partition there was not much religious politicly debate about language as many people could write and speak both , this is still seen in india as many of the states have signs in both hindi and urdu and the second language in school is usually hindi or Urdu .
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.
^clearly this person knows nothing about the  indus valey as exited close to 6000 years not 9000 and the British were south Asia upwards of 100 years.  Indus valley and genetics and culture were not confined to the indus valley it merely shows where it originates from , furthermore the indus valley where dharmic people which is where a lot of north indian genetic and culture comes from as well as religion which is why i would say it has as a equal effect of the people india or more than Pakistan (which is why the indus valley civilisation is much more taught india than pakistan). So having a border for 70 years doesnt suddenly confine the genetics and culture all to that region , only a fool would say that.
:  Maldivian here. Your lack of knowledge in this area and the fact that you are spewing this misinformation is what's comical. We speak an Indo Aryan language, we are descended from continental Indo Aryans and Dravidians. Our word for local is "Desi" and for foreigner is "Bidesi" in our native Dhivehi language. This article is factually inaccurate if you don't include Maldivians and Sri Lankans as Desis. Learn your history and genetics a bit better. Thanks -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.114.165.231 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pakistanis are not "Desis" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template.  B E C K Y  S A Y L E S  16:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay. (110.148.150.99 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2017 

message: 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
:  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)
thread_title: Debunking the genetic basis

message: 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.
:  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)
thread_title: Debunking the linguistic basis

message: 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)
thread_title:  Several sources including Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and Maldives as desi nations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Phonetics incorrect 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is a problem. The term Desi is used widely by everyone from the region I know. Personally, in business and in entertainment. Calling a person Desi is like calling them South Asian (assuming you know they are South Asian). Just like I wouldn't be offended by being called European by someone who doesn't know my nationality. Because I am European. Someone is offended by everything these days if they want to be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6388:4F01:884B:44C8:258A:95FC (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is criticizing the term? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Could somebody please remove  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)
replies: text:  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  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)
replies: text:  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 () clearly says, "desi has functioned as a code for all things Indian". The second source () Is not an academic source and says nothing about Maldivians, Nepalis or Sri Lankans. The third and final source () 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: , 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018 

message: Could somebody please revert changes made by ? 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 . Thanks. (120.144.154.144 (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018 

message: Could somebody please restore the version of Desi published by ?  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)
replies: text: Done Dolotta (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2018 

message: Could somebody please restore the version of Desi published by ?  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,  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Language vs. Alphabet 

message: I have a statement to make regarding the new information added to the article.  The source that the editor is quoting from, Boy Culture: An Encyclopedia, does NOT say that desi refers only to people from those countries that were under the British Raj:  India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.  If you read the Desi Boys section of that source, it says that desi is a slang term used to refer to South Asians.  You cannot put in information that is completely different or opposite to what an article states and then claim the article as a source of that information207.255.243.110 (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New content on definition of desi 

message: This is another link providing a definition of desi.  Hope this helps:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/desi 207.255.243.110 (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link explaining definition of desi 

message: Images are powerful in visualizing stuff. The map at the start of the article colors only three nations in their totality and implies that the following countries are by the straight definition excluded from the "Desi" culture: Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Myanmar. At the same time it is implied that all of Pakistan is part of the culture. I can see why some sources might exclude countries, or quite possible giving just the three most important examples for brevity. I think this should be discussed and amended, especially since there are so many nuances in South Asian culture. If Tamils are part of Desi culture, Sri Lanka should get included as well. If people with Assamese or Delhi background are Desi, why not Nepalese? If the concept is tethered that much to Hindi, then South India should not be colored in the map? If the concept exists to exclude Central Asia, as the article describes, parts of Pakistan should be dropped in the map. Was this map just introduced on a whim, based on the quote that is underneath it? --Enyavar (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro map 

message: Why is the lang-ta template included in the lead when desi is not a common term used in the Tamil language? This is very odd.  Chronikhiles (talk)  05:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamil?  

message: There is a plethora of sources that exclude people in Afghanistan from being labelled as desi as they are an eastern Iranian/Turkic country, not a Hindustani Indo-Aryan/Dravidian country. 
Please use the talk page to reach a consensus with reputable sources before adding them again 2600:1700:158F:A900:8CDD:EFC2:C0F8:7284 (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  People in Afghanistan are not desi