Talk:Racial classification of Indian Americans

United States: Asian Americans Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (assessed as Low-importance).

Name change

I think this article should be changed to "Racial classification of South Asian Americans", so the information in there doesn't have to be reproduced in the Pakistani American article. As it stands, racial classification information in the Pakistani American article is a prohibited WP:CFORK of this article.----^DarkTea 17:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep in mind that all the Supreme Court cases were pre-Independence, and therefore India was synonymous with "British India" which included most of South Asia. Given that this article documents the history of racial classification, I think it's appropriate to use the nomenclature used in the legal documents themselves, which always specified "Indian" - except in 1925 where the court ruled on "Punjabis" specifically, which the wiki article does make note of. -- Thoreaulylazy 18:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

User:Thoreaulylazy made some big changes to the article which removed the part about Parsis being classified as white, Roma being classified as white, poor Indians identifying as black, Indians who identify as brown not identifying with Hispanics, the US Census' definition of race using the phrase "origins in the original peoples of". I would like that user to explain her self/him self, since there was no edit summary for these edits.----^DarkTea © 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian = Oriental

Indians are not all racially the same, some are Indo-Aryan and some are Dravidian. How are they in the same group as Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese? 97.118.63.76 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is not a discussion forum for topics such as "anthropological classification of Indians", etc. For your kind information, this is about the racial classification of Indian Americans as viewed by the census bureau. You may have to send a petition to the census bureau voicing your concern, while wiki is not the right place to report this. And your way of classifying Indians isn't proper either. Aren't there "scheduled caste indians" who speak indo-aryan languages? Aren't there lighter skinned brahmins who speak south indian languages? That's exactly why India has a caste system. Speaking an Indo-Aryan language doesn't make someone an ethnic Indo-Aryan or Caucasian. You can't classify "black-americans as Indo-European just because they speak english today". I could point out a dozen "brahmin communities from the southern part of india" who are genetically close to Europeans than to Indians. Please stop posting irrelevant comments to this page. Hari7478 (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article has been updated to reflect the necessary changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.16.191 (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank Ephert for adding some insight to the article

Great job man! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.16.191 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Vandalism, Request for Semi-Protection

This page is being vandalized and reverted to previous versions of the page often by a user with multiple IP addresses. For this reason, it's difficult to issue a warning to any specific IP address. Requesting semi-protection of this page.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

--AmericanHistorian (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will request protection for you but next time use WP:RfPP RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

Hello FACT CHECKER 10007, I have created this discussion so you can explain why you feel the content you have repeatedly removed from the article should be removed.– BrandonXLF (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the removal: some of the cited sources were really dubious... (reddit, really? if this historian published this somewhere else, then maybe, and if they are citing their sources then find them and cite them directly...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Low Quality

This article is a low-quality mess. With the likely prominence of Nikki Haley in 2023, it should be replaced by a new, coherent article, covering both history and current facts. Note, for example, that the text containing the peculiar phrase "Working-class or state school-educated" has been pasted in twice. Similarly, the confusion between Census Bureau policy, activist assertions, and reliable opinion polls is pervasive. 76.167.85.97 (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

be bold then Lectonar (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]