Talk:Indian princess

Article is subjective and bias is strong, esp. in the intro

While I agree in the message of the article in how "indian princesses" push European culture onto Native Americans unnecessarily, this article is still enormously biased and almost accusatory in how it is written, especially the introduction. I think a major rewrite may help make this article become a bit more unbiased and neutral in its voice. Even if the evidence clearly states that Indian princesses are a Eurocentric artifact, I think it's important to still maintain a neutral and objective tone and voice in showing that evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.50.178 (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I got the same feeling. Yes the things that happened and names that were called are all bad, got it. But if it is incorrect and diragotory, what is the actual title? "Daughter of the Chief" cant possibly be it. 2A02:3100:59EF:3F00:7C65:5FAE:E96E:F4A1 (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The broader Playing Indian by Philip J. Deloria (great-nephew to Mary Sully and Ella Cara Deloria) has already been taken. For the "Indians-Playing-Indian" components, Show Indians followed a similar path. Perhaps Playing Indian Women? I supposed that's beyond "princess" and voids connections to government and governance. Bustamove1 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes agree with you..the person who has written the article about Indian Princess should read the history of Europe before 1400 A.D., there were only tribes..not royality. Indian history is more than 7500 years B.C., so in India we are getting a laugh over the precious knowledge of this donkey type writer.. Amkusalko (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Christianity

The lead currently uses the phrase "Christianity is better than traditional indigenous religion", and equates this statement to Eurocentrism.

Isn't this part of Christians' traditional ideas that their particular religion is superior to all others, and that it is based on some kind of revelation? That has much to do with religious intolerance, but is not actually unique to Europe. Dimadick (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Disney asid

We should mention the TV series Pocahontas: Princess of the American Indians and maybe do an article for it. NTDTV airs the show as simply American Indian Princess and the TV guide doesn't even mention Pocahontas in the title. Here is evidence from the website:

• "加拿大分台 - 新唐人电视台". ca.ntdtv.com. Archived from the original on 17 May 2019. 18:00 动画片:美洲印第安公主 19 {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 17 May 2018 suggested (help); horizontal tab character in |quote= at position 6 (help)

The translation of the quote is "18:00 Animation: American Indian Princess 19" and it does air at 6pm tonight and the next. Besides that, AIP is what displays in TV guides. It's channel 727 via Bell, not sure for other distors. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2021

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Indian princess → Native American princessNative American princess – The term Indian princess refers to Indian princesses of the Indian subcontinent, not a misunderstood stereotype of Native Americans. Far more historical and academic data support the term Indian princess to refer to female royalty in India. It was used since the Company Rule and Princely States in India to refer to princesses in India not Native Americans. Furthermore, it is important to not use dated terms and antiquated misconceptions to refer to a marginalized group. The ethnic group should be refered to as Native American, Indigenous Americans, or American Indian, to differentiate them from Indians and Indian Americans. Vajra Raja (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Vajra Raja (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: a review of the article's sources suggests that "Indian Princess" is the name used to refer to this stereotype, a topic that meets notability guidelines. We do not have an article about princesses of the Indian subcontinent, and this is therefore the best available article for the title. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RGW. 162 etc. (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is about the actual, established term, "Indian Princess", not anything called "Native American Princess", which would be inventing content / WP:OR. The article documents the stereotype, along with acknowledging a minor usage in Pow Wow culture (that many are now phasing out, fwiw). On WP we document and contextualize the history and current realities of racism, we don't whitewash it with cosmetic, invented name changes. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Widely used term, widely published—referring to American Indian women, real and imagined. Yuchitown (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown.
• Weak Oppose I want to support some move; per the nom the title is confusing. However, discussion of the trope seems to commonly refer to "Indian princess" specifically, and Royalty in India is a red link. This shouldn't be moved at this time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose If the trope is most commonly known by this misnomer, that's the best name for the article, particularly if there's no other article competing for the name. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RGW. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved against consensus

As seen above, consensus is to stay at this title. A new user moved it anyway. Reverting. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)