Talk:Indians in Kenya

Africa: Kenya Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kenya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as High-importance).

Article title

Can it be changed to Indian Kenyans, rather than Indians in Kenya? As it is, it implies that the Kenya's Asians are not Kenyan, more like aliens in the country. Asian Kenyans are fully African, fully Kenyan, not Indian outsiders. Well, I'm going to change it; if you don't like it, revert me. Skirtsy ^{My talkEdits} 21:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New article

This was created from Indians in Kenya by me—see the talk page for why I chose to do so. If you don't like it, revert me. Skirtsy ^{My talkEdits} 21:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: moved by Skirtsy (talk · contribs). Jenks24 (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Kenyan → Indians in Kenya – or alternative new title Kenyan Indians. Revert undiscussed move and follow WP:NC(CN). Both proposed titles have dozens or hundreds of times more Google Books hits than the present one. See below for comparison of the merits of the two proposed forms. 61.18.190.15 (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Kenya has the largest number of Google Books hits by far: about 47,000, or one thousand times as many as "Indian Kenyans", which has just 47. The rationale for the earlier unilateral move (that describing people by their ethnic origin is equivalent to calling them "aliens") reflects a distinctly North American political sensibility and does not convince me.61.18.190.15 (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now Google Books is showing me 2,500 hits for Indians in Kenya. Still greatly outnumbers the other terms, though not by three orders of magnitude. Tomorrow I suppose they will show 17. Or maybe 8 million. 61.18.190.15 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another alternative would be "Kenyan Indians", which has about 600 Google Books hits. This would also match the common ordering found in the U.K. itself and all its other former "Old World" colonies: British Nigerian (i.e. people of Nigerian origin living in Britain, not Britons living in Nigeria), Burmese Indians, Malaysian Siamese, etc. I'm not a big fan of these "double barrelled" forms in either "American" or "British" order, because they are inevitably confusing to people who are expecting the other ordering. 61.18.190.15 (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go with Kenyan Indians? or just undo the whole thing. Was only a suggestion, feel free to undo it. Skirtsy ^{My talkEdits} 16:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the issue came up I figure we might as well have a wider discussion and resolve it for once at for all. Not to mention I'm an IP and can't move articles myself :) 61.18.190.15 (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do it either yet, as I am a new editor. I think I have to wait another day, then I can move it. Skirtsy ^{My talkEdits} 13:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indians in Kenya. 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/20080509141643/http://www.wairua.com/ruth/culture/africa.html to http://www.wairua.com/ruth/culture/africa.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

I tried to follow through on the citations and footnote 28 is incorrect. The correct reference is Shiva Naipaul “North of south”, not V.S. Naipaul's book. Different authors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.217.125 (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]