Talk:British Indians

1928 Institute material

I've reverted the addition of material from 1928 Institute studies to the article several times. The purpose of these additions seems to be to promote the 1928 Institute as much as anything (and it's not clear what it means to describe it as "a University of Oxford supported think tank" means). At the very least, we'd need to see some secondary coverage of the findings to demonstrate that they're notable enough to include in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, their survey wasn't representative of the British Indian population as a whole, as they note on p. 10 of the report. I therefore think it's of limited value here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Outdated sources?

For both the "caste system" and "female foeticide" sections of the article, the sources listed are both from around 2007-09, yet the issue is presented to be a modern issue. We should either update the sources or remove the sections entirely Raguzz (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

They are well sourced and still valid just because they might be slightly old doesnt mean the issue has disappeared no other source claims the stated issues have been resolved. Mrdabalina (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

They aren't slightly old, they're over a decade old, Demographics of British Indians have increased a lot since the time the sources where published, I cannot find any recent reliable source about these issues thus I decided to remove them. The sections also say "A number of British Hindus" and "some British Indians", implying that only a small number of British Indians have taken part in these and not a major amount of the population, having this be put in an article about British Indians would be misleading. 17:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Raguzz (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that once forces approach an age of 15 years, it's reasonable to examine whether they're still WP:DUE in the article. There are, in fact, still occasional news articles on caste discrimination and sex-selective abortions in the UK, although most of them note that it's difficult to know how extensive those problems are. So I would keep the information in the article, but update it and the sources cited. I also think we should not give the two topics their own subsections, given how short they are and the uncertainty that surrounds them. And we should definitely not use loaded terms like "feoticide" for abortion. Tserton (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2023

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. Favonian (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• British Indians → Indians in the United Kingdom
• British Pakistanis → Pakistanis in the United Kingdom
• British Chinese → Chinese in the United Kingdom

– British Pakistanis refers to Pakistanis of British origin, British Indians - Indian people of British origin, British Chinese - Chinese people of British origin. The purpose of a title is to accurately and adequately convey the content and subject of the corresponding article. Skovl (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. These are properly named per WP:ETHNICGROUP; the latter even uses one of these as an example of the convention. British Indians / British Pakistanis / British Chinese are the common names for these ethnic groups in the UK. I have never seen these terms referring to "X of British origin", as claimed, unless referring to a "British X" who has moved to another context.—Caorongjin 💬 14:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as, absent evidence to the contrary, I believe British Indians, etc. are the most commonly used names for these groups. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose for this reason as well. Pohjamadesse1 (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Caorongjin, Cordless Larry: if you look into Category:Indian diaspora by country, Category:Pakistani diaspora by country, Category:Chinese diaspora by country, you will see that all other diaspora are names as "Pakistanis in X", "Chinese in X" or "Indians in X". Sometimes Indian Indonesians, Indian Saudis, Indo-Seychellois, Indian Nepalis, Indian Filipino or Chinese Venezuelans, Chinese Brazilians, Chinese Americans. Typically, the first word designates the ethnic origin while the second word indicates the country of residence. However, the naming convention for diaspora groups in the United Kingdom diverges from that of other countries in which diaspora communities reside. --Skovl (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• That's not how we determine article titles on Wikipedia though. Article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources - see WP:TITLE. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:CONSISTENT which is part of WP:TITLE. Skovl (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• oppose what's wrong with the existing title?—blindlynx 20:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - per others. Estar8806 (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. Lectonar (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2023 (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.

Outdated info

A lot of the financial stats are outdated. For instance, the National Equality Panel report in 2012 is based on data of around 2006-2008. Unless there strong objections, i will update with more recent sources. Koppite1 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You should do that, but as always make sure they're reliable. Pohjamadesse1 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There are some fairly recent studies from various think tanks, such as Resolution Foundation or Civitas (think tank) . I should think that they are reliable enough to use.

1) A-gap-that-wont-close.pdf (resolutionfoundation.org)

2)BritishOpenness.pdf (civitas.org.uk)

Thanks. Koppite1 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic name

"British Indians" or "Indian Britishs"? Illchy (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The current title is quite peculiar. They are no longer Indian citizens; they are British citizens or Britons. Citizens in the United States with roots in India are referred to as "Indian Americans," not "American Indians." Therefore, citizens in the United Kingdom with Indian ancestry should be called "Indian British people" or "Indian Britons", but never "British Indians". "British Indian" could denote Indian citizens with some connection to Britain, such as ancestral ties to the UK or those who have lived in the UK for some time. However, if they obtain British nationality, they should be referred to as "Indian British people". Kpratter (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The UK census itself uses to the term "Asian British: Indian" so Indian British makes sense with that in mind. Ixudi (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2023

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

---

British Indians → Indian British people – See the topic directly above. They are no longer Indian citizens; they are British citizens. "British Indian" could denote Indian citizens with some connection to Britain, such as ancestral ties to the UK or those who have lived in the UK for some time. However, if they obtain British nationality, they are referred to as "Indian British people". Kpratter (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as demonstrated in Google Ngrams [1]. The order in which you mash demonyms together is purely a WP:ENGVAR issue, which is why this article's name differs from Indian Americans, and has nothing to do with citizenship. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, it is indeed a question of WP:COMMONNAME, as I have mentioned above in the older requested move. Lectonar (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. However, if they obtain British nationality, they are referred to as "Indian British people". Where are they? In any case, many British Indians were born in the UK with British nationality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp if someone is born in the UK with British nationality, they are considered a Briton and cannot be classified as Indian. However, they can have Indian origins, making them an Indian Briton. This is precisely why I propose to move this article to "Indian British people." Indian British people are an integrated part of the British nation, fully belonging to the British populace. They are Indians only by origin, but they are fully British people, just as Indian Indonesians are fully Indonesians, Indian Mexicans are Mexicans, Indian Filipino are Filipino, Indian Americans are Americans, and so on. Kpratter (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  However, in Britain we call people of Indian origin who were born in this country British Indians! We also say British Pakistanis, British Bangladeshis, etc. We never use the term "Indian British people". Just because other countries may use different terminology does not change the WP:COMMONNAME in this country. Wikipedia reports facts. It does not invent its own terminology. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp does this mean that they are denied recognition as Britons simply because of their origin? Some have been British citizen for three generations, yet you say they are not referred to as British people. However, if you argue that it's a common name, I can only accept this and retract my proposal. Kpratter (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Of course not. This is the terminology used by them too. It is merely a difference in terminology, not an undermining of anybody's rights. You are interpreting the teminology in a specific way that is not the interpretation used by others. You will notice that the word "British" is in there, which surely quite specifically states that they are Britons! You seem to believe that because it comes first and not second this is somehow insulting, but this is clearly not the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2023 (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.